Op 16-07-15 om 17:01 schreef Daniel Vetter: > 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 No, but I thought connectors_active would be a good end goal for this series. :) _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
