On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 12:24:07PM +0200, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: > Op 07-07-15 om 11:15 schreef Daniel Vetter: > > Since > > > > commit 8c7b5ccb729870e606321b3703e2c2e698c49a95 > > Author: Ander Conselvan de Oliveira <ander.conselvan.de.oliveira@xxxxxxxxx> > > Date: Tue Apr 21 17:13:19 2015 +0300 > > > > drm/i915: Use atomic helpers for computing changed flags > > > > we compute the plane state for a modeset before actually committing > > any changes, which means crtc->active won't be correct yet. Looking at > > future work in the modeset conversion targetting 4.3 the only places > > where crtc_state->active isn't accurate is when disabling other CRTCs > > than the one the modeset is for (when stealing connectors). Which > > isn't the case here. And that's also confirmed by an audit, we do > > unconditionally update crtc_state->active for the current pipe. > > > > We also don't need to update any other plane check functions since we > > only ever add the primary state to the modeset update right now. > > > > Cc: Ander Conselvan de Oliveira <ander.conselvan.de.oliveira@xxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c > > index 647b1404c441..ba9321998a41 100644 > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c > > @@ -13276,7 +13276,7 @@ intel_check_primary_plane(struct drm_plane *plane, > > if (ret) > > return ret; > > > > - if (intel_crtc->active) { > > + if (crtc_state->base.active) { > > struct intel_plane_state *old_state = > > to_intel_plane_state(plane->state); > > > I think this was probably a feature, not a bug. Since full atomic planes won't be part of v4.2 > both patches look ok to me. I wasn't sure - in dinq we didn't convert his as part of the patches which switched to check state->active in check functions, but only later on was removed in some seemingly unrelated refactor. Not sure why this didn't blow up more ... > Reviewed-by: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Both applied, thanks for review. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx