On Wed, 2015-06-17 at 15:42 +0300, Jani Nikula wrote: > On Wed, 17 Jun 2015, Ander Conselvan De Oliveira <conselvan2@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, 2015-06-17 at 15:04 +0300, Jani Nikula wrote: > >> On Tue, 16 Jun 2015, Ander Conselvan de Oliveira <ander.conselvan.de.oliveira@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > Since the force restore logic will restore the CRTCs state one at a > >> > time, it is possible that the state will be inconsistent until the whole > >> > operation finishes. A call to intel_modeset_check_state() is done once > >> > it's over, so don't check the state multiple times in between. This > >> > regression was introduced in: > >> > > >> > commit 7f27126ea3db6ade886f18fd39caf0ff0cd1d37f > >> > Author: Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> > Date: Wed Nov 5 14:26:06 2014 -0800 > >> > > >> > drm/i915: factor out compute_config from __intel_set_mode v3 > >> > > >> > v2: Rename check parameter to force_restore. (Matt) > >> > > >> > Bugzilla: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=94431 > >> > Cc: Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> > Signed-off-by: Ander Conselvan de Oliveira <ander.conselvan.de.oliveira@xxxxxxxxx> > >> > Reviewed-by: Matt Roper <matthew.d.roper@xxxxxxxxx> > >> > >> All three patches applied to drm-intel-next-fixes, aiming for v4.2 merge > >> window. Thanks for the patches and review. > >> > >> For drm-intel-nightly, I resolved the conflicts by ignoring these > >> changes and favoring what's in drm-intel-next-queued. Fingers crossed I > >> didn't botch it up! > > > > In the end, that means only the content of 3/3 is in -nightly. It won't > > fix any of the issues, but shouldn't cause any problems. > > But it is expected that Maarten's atomic work will eventually fix this, > right? Yes, that's correct. Ander _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
