On Wed, 5 Sep 2012 21:43:30 +0200 Daniel Vetter <daniel.vet...@ffwll.ch> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 8:14 PM, Jesse Barnes <jbar...@virtuousgeek.org> wrote: > > An ugly intermediate step... also did you check whether moving the > > crtc->x/y assignment up is safe? We're passing it around, but some > > places might check for crtc->x/y looking for old values (or did that > > already change in the previous patch... too many patches). > > Yeah, I've hunted around in the codebase and found nothing for these. > I also wanted to give crtc->mode the same treatment, but that is > definitely used all over the place. Obviously double-checking this by > the reviewer would be great ;-) > > Wrt this being an ugly intermediate step: The disable/modeset stuff > was scary enough that I wanted to do that in discrete patches, hence > this slightly ugly prep step. Yeah it's fine, was just making noise. It has to get ugly while it's in the cocoon turning into a butterfly. :) -- Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
