On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 06:56:55PM +0530, Anshuman Gupta wrote: > we can't have (pipe == crtc->index) assumption in > driver in order to support 3 non-contiguous > display pipe system. > > Cc: Ville Syrjälä <[email protected]> > Signed-off-by: Anshuman Gupta <[email protected]> > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c | 10 ++++------ > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c > index 878d331b9e8c..afd8d43160c6 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c > @@ -14070,11 +14070,11 @@ verify_single_dpll_state(struct drm_i915_private > *dev_priv, > if (new_crtc_state->hw.active) > I915_STATE_WARN(!(pll->active_mask & crtc_mask), > "pll active mismatch (expected pipe %c in > active mask 0x%02x)\n", > - pipe_name(drm_crtc_index(&crtc->base)), > pll->active_mask); > + pipe_name(crtc->pipe), pll->active_mask); > else > I915_STATE_WARN(pll->active_mask & crtc_mask, > "pll active mismatch (didn't expect pipe %c in > active mask 0x%02x)\n", > - pipe_name(drm_crtc_index(&crtc->base)), > pll->active_mask); > + pipe_name(crtc->pipe), pll->active_mask); > > I915_STATE_WARN(!(pll->state.crtc_mask & crtc_mask), > "pll enabled crtcs mismatch (expected 0x%x in > 0x%02x)\n", > @@ -14103,10 +14103,10 @@ verify_shared_dpll_state(struct intel_crtc *crtc, > > I915_STATE_WARN(pll->active_mask & crtc_mask, > "pll active mismatch (didn't expect pipe %c in > active mask)\n", > - pipe_name(drm_crtc_index(&crtc->base))); > + pipe_name(crtc->pipe)); > I915_STATE_WARN(pll->state.crtc_mask & crtc_mask, > "pll enabled crtcs mismatch (found %x in > enabled mask)\n", > - pipe_name(drm_crtc_index(&crtc->base))); > + pipe_name(crtc->pipe)); > } > } > > @@ -16485,8 +16485,6 @@ static int intel_crtc_init(struct drm_i915_private > *dev_priv, enum pipe pipe) > > intel_color_init(crtc); > > - WARN_ON(drm_crtc_index(&crtc->base) != crtc->pipe); > -
The first and second hunks don't really have anything to do with each other. Also the WARN_ON() should not be removed until all the assumptions are fixed. > return 0; > > fail: > -- > 2.24.0 -- Ville Syrjälä Intel _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list [email protected] https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
