Hi,
On 14 September 2015 at 10:30, Maarten Lankhorst
<maarten.lankhorst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> @@ -13013,14 +13013,15 @@ static int intel_atomic_check(struct drm_device *dev,
> if (ret)
> return ret;
>
> - if (intel_pipe_config_compare(state->dev,
> - to_intel_crtc_state(crtc->state),
> - pipe_config, true)) {
> + if (!crtc_state->connectors_changed &&
> + !crtc_state->active_changed && look
> + crtc_state->active &&
> + intel_pipe_config_compare(state->dev,
> + to_intel_crtc_state(crtc->state),
> + pipe_config, true)) {
> crtc_state->mode_changed = false;
> - to_intel_crtc_state(crtc_state)->update_pipe = true;
> - }
> -
> - if (needs_modeset(crtc_state)) {
> + pipe_config->update_pipe = true;
> + } else {
> any_ms = true;
The change from only setting any_ms if needs_modeset() is true, to
always if we can't do a fastset, seems correct but maybe a bit subtle.
Was that intended? At the moment it does look like it'll widen the net
a little bit, but I _suspect_ that's a good thing. Pending igt:
Acked-by: Daniel Stone <daniels@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cheers,
Daniel
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
