Op 29-05-15 om 02:55 schreef Matt Roper:
> On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 06:04:26PM +0200, maarten.lankho...@linux.intel.com
> wrote:
>> From: Ander Conselvan de Oliveira <ander.conselvan.de.olive...@intel.com>
>>
>> It makes more sense there, since these are computation steps that can
>> fail.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankho...@linux.intel.com>
> I've noticed that a few of the patches in this series were originally
> written by Ander, but seem to be missing his s-o-b line. I think you
> generally want to just append your line after his in that case.
>
> One other cosmetic note farther down.
>
>> ---
>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c | 70
>> ++++++++++++++++++------------------
>> 1 file changed, 35 insertions(+), 35 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
>> index 81d5358efdde..e7aa8610cbdc 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
>> @@ -12085,37 +12085,6 @@ static void update_scanline_offset(struct
>> intel_crtc *crtc)
>> crtc->scanline_offset = 1;
>> }
>>
>> -static int
>> -intel_modeset_compute_config(struct drm_atomic_state *state)
>> -{
>> - struct drm_crtc *crtc;
>> - struct drm_crtc_state *crtc_state;
>> - int ret, i;
>> -
>> - ret = drm_atomic_helper_check_modeset(state->dev, state);
>> - if (ret)
>> - return ret;
>> -
>> - for_each_crtc_in_state(state, crtc, crtc_state, i) {
>> - if (!crtc_state->enable &&
>> - WARN_ON(crtc_state->active))
>> - crtc_state->active = false;
>> -
>> - if (!crtc_state->enable)
>> - continue;
>> -
>> - ret = intel_modeset_pipe_config(crtc, state);
>> - if (ret)
>> - return ret;
>> -
>> - intel_dump_pipe_config(to_intel_crtc(crtc),
>> - to_intel_crtc_state(crtc_state),
>> - "[modeset]");
>> - }
>> -
>> - return drm_atomic_helper_check_planes(state->dev, state);
>> -}
>> -
>> static int __intel_set_mode_setup_plls(struct drm_atomic_state *state)
>> {
>> struct drm_device *dev = state->dev;
>> @@ -12191,6 +12160,41 @@ static int __intel_set_mode_checks(struct
>> drm_atomic_state *state)
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>> +static int
>> +intel_modeset_compute_config(struct drm_atomic_state *state)
>> +{
>> + struct drm_crtc *crtc;
>> + struct drm_crtc_state *crtc_state;
>> + int ret, i;
>> +
>> + ret = drm_atomic_helper_check_modeset(state->dev, state);
>> + if (ret)
>> + return ret;
>> +
>> + for_each_crtc_in_state(state, crtc, crtc_state, i) {
>> + if (!crtc_state->enable &&
>> + WARN_ON(crtc_state->active))
>> + crtc_state->active = false;
>> +
>> + if (!crtc_state->enable)
>> + continue;
>> +
>> + ret = intel_modeset_pipe_config(crtc, state);
>> + if (ret)
>> + return ret;
>> +
>> + intel_dump_pipe_config(to_intel_crtc(crtc),
>> + to_intel_crtc_state(crtc_state),
>> + "[modeset]");
>> + }
>> +
>> + ret = drm_atomic_helper_check_planes(state->dev, state);
>> + if (ret)
>> + return ret;
>> +
>> + return __intel_set_mode_checks(state);
> Just a cosmetic note, but maybe we should rename this function now?
> It's not called from __intel_set_mode anymore and it isn't really
> 'checks' (but rather setup that we intend to be done during the check
> phase), so the whole name seems a bit misleading now.
>
Later on intel_modeset_compute_config gets renamed to intel_atomic_check,
and I conditionally run intel_set_mode_checks depending on whether a modeset
is requested or not. I guess __intel_set_mode_checks could be renamed to
intel_modeset_checks.
~Maarten
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
