On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 05:25:08PM +0100, Kieran Bingham wrote: > >>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/rcar-du/rcar_du_kms.c > >>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/rcar-du/rcar_du_kms.c > >>> index 82b978a5dae6..c2f382feca07 100644 > >>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/rcar-du/rcar_du_kms.c > >>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/rcar-du/rcar_du_kms.c > >>> @@ -255,9 +255,9 @@ static void rcar_du_atomic_commit_tail(struct > >>> drm_atomic_state *old_state) > >>> > >>> /* Apply the atomic update. */ > >>> drm_atomic_helper_commit_modeset_disables(dev, old_state); > >>> - drm_atomic_helper_commit_modeset_enables(dev, old_state); > >>> drm_atomic_helper_commit_planes(dev, old_state, > >>> DRM_PLANE_COMMIT_ACTIVE_ONLY); > >> > >> Except for DRM_PLANE_COMMIT_ACTIVE_ONLY, this function now looks very much > >> like > >> the default drm_atomic_helper_commit_tail() code. > >> > >> Reading around other uses /variants of commit_tail() style functions in > >> other > >> drivers has left me confused as to how the ordering affects things here. > >> > >> Could be worth adding a comment at least to describe why we can't use the > >> default helper... > > > > Or better still ... Use Maxime's new : > > > > [PATCH 1/4] drm/atomic: implement drm_atomic_helper_commit_tail for > > runtime_pm users > > Never mind - I've just looked again, and seen that this new helper function is > the ordering previous to *this* patch, and therefore isn't the same. > > However - it's worth noting that Maxime's patch converts this function to the > new helper - which contradicts this patch's motivations.
So I guess I should drop the renesas modifications in my serie then? Maxime -- Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering http://free-electrons.com
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
