| Message ID | 1442931974-5571-1-git-send-email-maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
Op 23-09-15 om 11:01 schreef Jani Nikula: > On Tue, 22 Sep 2015, Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com> wrote: >> Nothing good can come from detaching scalers or updating pipe config >> when the crtc is already disabled. Touching registers while the crtc >> and power wells are disabled causes unclaimed register access warnings. > -fixes maintainer grumble. How am I supposed to decipher from this > Subject: line and commit message whether this is a real fix to a real > problem out there, and therefore to be queued for current -rc > development kernels and possibly cc: stable, or not? > > When in doubt, I usually shrug it off, and decide it's for > drm-intel-next-queued, and therefore SEP. > It's for v4.3, so -fixes. Should I explicitly mention it in the commit message next time? ~Maarten
On Tue, 22 Sep 2015, Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com> wrote: > Nothing good can come from detaching scalers or updating pipe config > when the crtc is already disabled. Touching registers while the crtc > and power wells are disabled causes unclaimed register access warnings. -fixes maintainer grumble. How am I supposed to decipher from this Subject: line and commit message whether this is a real fix to a real problem out there, and therefore to be queued for current -rc development kernels and possibly cc: stable, or not? When in doubt, I usually shrug it off, and decide it's for drm-intel-next-queued, and therefore SEP. BR, Jani. > > Reported-by: Mika Kuoppala <mika.kuoppala@intel.com> > Signed-off-by: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com> > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c > index a4c24e6f5d6f..5a68290bf8c6 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c > @@ -13527,7 +13527,7 @@ static void intel_begin_crtc_commit(struct drm_crtc *crtc, > /* Perform vblank evasion around commit operation */ > intel_pipe_update_start(intel_crtc); > > - if (modeset) > + if (modeset || !crtc->state->active) > return; > > if (to_intel_crtc_state(crtc->state)->update_pipe) > -- > 2.1.0 > > _______________________________________________ > Intel-gfx mailing list > Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
On Wed, 23 Sep 2015, Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com> wrote: > Op 23-09-15 om 11:01 schreef Jani Nikula: >> On Tue, 22 Sep 2015, Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com> wrote: >>> Nothing good can come from detaching scalers or updating pipe config >>> when the crtc is already disabled. Touching registers while the crtc >>> and power wells are disabled causes unclaimed register access warnings. >> -fixes maintainer grumble. How am I supposed to decipher from this >> Subject: line and commit message whether this is a real fix to a real >> problem out there, and therefore to be queued for current -rc >> development kernels and possibly cc: stable, or not? >> >> When in doubt, I usually shrug it off, and decide it's for >> drm-intel-next-queued, and therefore SEP. >> > It's for v4.3, so -fixes. Should I explicitly mention it in the commit > message next time? If you have that information, please do. If not in the commit message, then either as a comment after the --- line or in the subject as [PATCH for v4.3] or something. Otherwise you'll be relying on my competence too much. ;) BR, Jani. > > ~Maarten
On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 01:33:29PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote: > On Wed, 23 Sep 2015, Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > Op 23-09-15 om 11:01 schreef Jani Nikula: > >> On Tue, 22 Sep 2015, Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com> wrote: > >>> Nothing good can come from detaching scalers or updating pipe config > >>> when the crtc is already disabled. Touching registers while the crtc > >>> and power wells are disabled causes unclaimed register access warnings. > >> -fixes maintainer grumble. How am I supposed to decipher from this > >> Subject: line and commit message whether this is a real fix to a real > >> problem out there, and therefore to be queued for current -rc > >> development kernels and possibly cc: stable, or not? > >> > >> When in doubt, I usually shrug it off, and decide it's for > >> drm-intel-next-queued, and therefore SEP. > >> > > It's for v4.3, so -fixes. Should I explicitly mention it in the commit > > message next time? > > If you have that information, please do. If not in the commit message, > then either as a comment after the --- line or in the subject as [PATCH > for v4.3] or something. Otherwise you'll be relying on my competence too > much. ;) What you really should do is mention which commit broke stuff and if applicable, add a Bugzilla: link. That's required information anyway for regression fixes, and we have maintainer scripts to tell us where to place the patch. -Daniel
On Tue, 22 Sep 2015, Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com> wrote: > Nothing good can come from detaching scalers or updating pipe config > when the crtc is already disabled. Touching registers while the crtc > and power wells are disabled causes unclaimed register access warnings. > > Reported-by: Mika Kuoppala <mika.kuoppala@intel.com> > Signed-off-by: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com> Maarten, this patch has no reviews and it no longer applies to v4.3 cleanly. Please rebase and repost if it's still valid. BR, Jani. > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c > index a4c24e6f5d6f..5a68290bf8c6 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c > @@ -13527,7 +13527,7 @@ static void intel_begin_crtc_commit(struct drm_crtc *crtc, > /* Perform vblank evasion around commit operation */ > intel_pipe_update_start(intel_crtc); > > - if (modeset) > + if (modeset || !crtc->state->active) > return; > > if (to_intel_crtc_state(crtc->state)->update_pipe) > -- > 2.1.0 > > _______________________________________________ > Intel-gfx mailing list > Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c index a4c24e6f5d6f..5a68290bf8c6 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c @@ -13527,7 +13527,7 @@ static void intel_begin_crtc_commit(struct drm_crtc *crtc, /* Perform vblank evasion around commit operation */ intel_pipe_update_start(intel_crtc); - if (modeset) + if (modeset || !crtc->state->active) return; if (to_intel_crtc_state(crtc->state)->update_pipe)
Nothing good can come from detaching scalers or updating pipe config when the crtc is already disabled. Touching registers while the crtc and power wells are disabled causes unclaimed register access warnings. Reported-by: Mika Kuoppala <mika.kuoppala@intel.com> Signed-off-by: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com> --- drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)