Op 18-02-16 om 14:08 schreef Zanoni, Paulo R: > Em Qui, 2016-02-18 às 10:51 +0100, Maarten Lankhorst escreveu: >> Op 17-02-16 om 18:54 schreef Zanoni, Paulo R: >>> Em Qua, 2016-02-10 às 13:49 +0100, Maarten Lankhorst escreveu: >>>> Use our newly created encoder_mask to iterate over the encoders. >>> As someone who was not paying attention to the discussion of the >>> previous patches related to this, I think it would be really good >>> if >>> your commit message could tell me why we should use the newly >>> created >>> encoder_mask instead of the current patch. What's bad about the >>> current >>> version? Please sell me your patch. If you think the answer is >>> trivial, >>> remember that it's not trivial to many people, and that random >>> people >>> may find this patch through git-bisect and have to judge its >>> importance. Also, an explanation really helps the reviewers :) >>> >>> The patch looks correct, so if you improve the commit message: >>> Reviewed-by: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni@xxxxxxxxx> >> Does this sound good? >> >> Use our newly created encoder_mask to iterate over the encoders. >> This makes it possible to get the crtc power domains from the >> crtc_state at any time, without any locks or having to look at >> the legacy state. > But we were already not grabbing any locks. Is this a bug fix? It would > be good to point it if it's an actual fix. > > Anyway, it's definitely better now :) > But we're holding locks, crtc.mutex and mode_config.connection_mutex. The changes allows us to remove the need of the locks, just a crtc_state is enough. _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
