[Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2 1/3] drm/i915: Don't check modeset state in the hw state force restore path

[Ander Conselvan De Oliveira]

On Wed, 2015-06-17 at 15:13 +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Jun 2015, Jani Nikula <jani.nikula at linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 16 Jun 2015, Ander Conselvan de Oliveira <ander.conselvan.de.oliveira at intel.com> wrote:
> >> Since the force restore logic will restore the CRTCs state one at a
> >> time, it is possible that the state will be inconsistent until the whole
> >> operation finishes. A call to intel_modeset_check_state() is done once
> >> it's over, so don't check the state multiple times in between. This
> >> regression was introduced in:
> >>
> >> commit 7f27126ea3db6ade886f18fd39caf0ff0cd1d37f
> >> Author: Jesse Barnes <jbarnes at virtuousgeek.org>
> >> Date:   Wed Nov 5 14:26:06 2014 -0800
> >>
> >>     drm/i915: factor out compute_config from __intel_set_mode v3
> >>
> >> v2: Rename check parameter to force_restore. (Matt)
> >>
> >> Bugzilla: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=94431
> >> Cc: Jesse Barnes <jbarnes at virtuousgeek.org>
> >> Signed-off-by: Ander Conselvan de Oliveira <ander.conselvan.de.oliveira at intel.com>
> >> Reviewed-by: Matt Roper <matthew.d.roper at intel.com>
> >
> > All three patches applied to drm-intel-next-fixes, aiming for v4.2 merge
> > window. Thanks for the patches and review.
> >
> > For drm-intel-nightly, I resolved the conflicts by ignoring these
> > changes and favoring what's in drm-intel-next-queued. Fingers crossed I
> > didn't botch it up!
> 
> Also, do we need some of these in v4.1 or earlier as well? Should we
> backport once these are upstream?

The regression 1/3 solves goes back to v3.19. The other patches are only
relevant for 4.2 and later.

Thanks,
Ander