On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 11:38:33AM +0200, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: > Hey, > > Op 16-07-15 om 11:24 schreef Daniel Vetter: > > On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 10:59:22AM +0200, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: > >> This is handled by the atomic core now, no need to check this for ourself. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > For all these "Remove ..." patches I think it'd be better to rewrite the > > changed code to use atomic state for whatever it does directly and stop > > using any of the legacy state (whether drm core or i915 legacy state). If > > we do that conversion it's possible to review whether there's any cases > > we're no longer checking. Trying to do that while we just rip out code > > makes that harder. > > > > hw state checker would then only compare hw state against atomic state, > > and it would be the job of update_legacy_state and friends to make sure > > atomic state matches up with legacy state. > > > I think converting the hw state checker to take atomic state would be a lot of work, > which should really be its own followup patch series. Yeah that's kinda my point, I'd like to split this off from at least the dpms series. Or is connectors_active causing troubles? -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
