[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 15:42 +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Jun 2015, Ander Conselvan De Oliveira <conselvan2 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2015-06-17 at 15:04 +0300, Jani Nikula 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!
> >
> > In the end, that means only the content of 3/3 is in -nightly. It won't
> > fix any of the issues, but shouldn't cause any problems.
> 
> But it is expected that Maarten's atomic work will eventually fix this,
> right?

Yes, that's correct.

Ander