Re: [PATCH 09/13] drm/i915: Remove some unneeded checks from check_crtc_state.

From: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>
To: Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/13] drm/i915: Remove some unneeded checks from check_crtc_state.
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 16:59:54 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <55A7C6EA.9030908@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150716150141.GL6223@phenom.ffwll.local>

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@linux.intel.com>
>>> 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@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx