[Intel-gfx] [RESEND] drm/i915: stop conflating HAS_DISPLAY() and disabled display

[Chris Wilson]

Quoting Ville Syrjälä (2019-09-16 15:27:40)
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 05:05:10PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> > The main goal here (in this specific patch) is to decouple disabled but
> > existing display from non-existing display. That lets us develop the two
> > cases independently, and I acknowledge I may have been simple minded
> > enough at some point to believe they could be put in the same bucket.
> 
> What's the actual use case for the "disabled but existing display"?

There are 2 reasons why I have it enabled for the live gem selftests. Not
setting up the display makes module reload faster, and the other reason
is that I hoped to avoid any spurious interactions (random hotplug
events) in the middle of the stress tests.

The latter usecase I would suggest applies to headless servers, where we
want to minimise random events.
-Chris