On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 16:50:48 +0200, Daniel Vetter <daniel.vet...@ffwll.ch>
wrote:
> Also ditch the cargo-culted dev_priv checks - either we have a
> giant hole in our setup code or this is useless. Plainly bogus
> to check for it in either case.
>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vet...@ffwll.ch>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c | 3 +++
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_overlay.c | 12 ++++--------
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sprite.c | 10 ++++------
> 3 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
> index 4c844c6..f17046c 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
> @@ -6078,6 +6078,9 @@ int intel_get_pipe_from_crtc_id(struct drm_device *dev,
> void *data,
> struct drm_mode_object *drmmode_obj;
> struct intel_crtc *crtc;
>
> + if (!drm_core_check_feature(dev, DRIVER_MODESET))
> + return -ENODEV;
> +
> if (!dev_priv) {
> DRM_ERROR("called with no initialization\n");
> return -EINVAL;
So why is it still here? What does this mean, we can reach this point
without initialising the device? Yikes.
-Chris
--
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
