From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] drm/i915/vlv: move DPIO init earlier v2
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 16:02:38 -0800
Message-ID: <20131216160238.21b13005@jbarnes-desktop>
References: <1386880917-2951-1-git-send-email-jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org>
	<1386880917-2951-5-git-send-email-jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org>
	<20131214104736.GI9804@phenom.ffwll.local>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org>
Received: from alt-proxy13.mail.unifiedlayer.com
	(alt-proxy13.mail.unifiedlayer.com [67.222.34.81])
	by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 54A2BFB1CB
	for <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>;
	Mon, 16 Dec 2013 16:00:49 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20131214104736.GI9804@phenom.ffwll.local>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/options/intel-gfx>,
	<mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/intel-gfx>
List-Post: <mailto:intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>
List-Help: <mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx>,
	<mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org
Errors-To: intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org
To: Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org

On Sat, 14 Dec 2013 11:47:36 +0100
Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch> wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 12:41:56PM -0800, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> > It's needed for early mode state readout, which is in turn needed to
> > inherit the BIOS config.  So split out the reset, which we need on
> > resume too, from the DPIO reg init, and do the latter earlier.
> > 
> > v2: split reset and reg init
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org>
> 
> Isn't this a fixup due to the slight init reordering you do in patch 2? If
> so we need to get this one in first, and I'd also prefer if the init
> reordering is split out as a separate patch from patch 2 - that stuff
> almost always ends up hurting us in some way or the order, so a minimal
> patch as an obvious bisect point is imo worth it.
> 
> With those prep patches split out I could also start merging to get this
> sucker moving finally.

Sure, done.

-- 
Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center