[Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915/i9xx: check for panel on pipe before asserting panel unlock bits

[Jesse Barnes]

On 11 Dec 2014 00:40:28 -0800
shuang.he at intel.com wrote:

> Tested-By: PRC QA PRTS (Patch Regression Test System Contact: shuang.he at intel.com)
> -------------------------------------Summary-------------------------------------
> Platform          Delta          drm-intel-nightly          Series Applied
> PNV                                  364/364              364/364
> ILK              +1-4              364/366              361/366
> SNB                                  448/450              448/450
> IVB                                  497/498              497/498
> BYT                                  289/289              289/289
> HSW                                  563/564              563/564
> BDW                                  417/417              417/417
> -------------------------------------Detailed-------------------------------------
> Platform  Test                                drm-intel-nightly          Series Applied
> *ILK  igt_kms_pipe_crc_basic_bad-pipe      PASS(2, M26)      DMESG_WARN(1, M26)
> *ILK  igt_kms_flip_busy-flip-interruptible      PASS(5, M26)      DMESG_WARN(1, M26)
> *ILK  igt_kms_flip_flip-vs-rmfb-interruptible      NSPT(1, M26)PASS(5, M26)      DMESG_WARN(1, M26)
>  ILK  igt_kms_flip_plain-flip-ts-check-interruptible      DMESG_WARN(1, M26)PASS(4, M26)      DMESG_WARN(1, M26)
>  ILK  igt_kms_flip_wf_vblank-ts-check      DMESG_WARN(7, M26)PASS(21, M26M37)      PASS(1, M26)
> Note: You need to pay more attention to line start with '*'

Based on this log and the one for saving and restoring the GMbus clock,
it looks like we have some inconsistent results on ILK.  Can you look
into the logs and file bugs against those tests if they're no already
filed?

Thanks,
-- 
Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center