radeon: completely remove lut leftovers

Submitted by Daniel Vetter on Jan. 10, 2018, 8:18 a.m.

Details

Message ID 20180110081814.13993-1-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch
State New
Headers show
Series "radeon: completely remove lut leftovers" ( rev: 1 ) in DRI devel

Not browsing as part of any series.

Commit Message

Daniel Vetter Jan. 10, 2018, 8:18 a.m.
This is an oversight from

commit 42585395ebc1034a98937702849669f17eadb35f
Author: Peter Rosin <peda@axentia.se>
Date:   Thu Jul 13 18:25:36 2017 +0200

    drm: radeon: remove dead code and pointless local lut storage

Cc: Peter Rosin <peda@axentia.se>
Cc: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>
Cc: Michel Dänzer <michel.daenzer@amd.com>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@intel.com>
---
 drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_display.c | 6 ------
 drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_mode.h    | 1 -
 2 files changed, 7 deletions(-)

Patch hide | download patch | download mbox

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_display.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_display.c
index dfda5e0ed166..d22f4b6a8828 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_display.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_display.c
@@ -698,12 +698,6 @@  static void radeon_crtc_init(struct drm_device *dev, int index)
 	radeon_crtc->mode_set.num_connectors = 0;
 #endif
 
-	for (i = 0; i < 256; i++) {
-		radeon_crtc->lut_r[i] = i << 2;
-		radeon_crtc->lut_g[i] = i << 2;
-		radeon_crtc->lut_b[i] = i << 2;
-	}
-
 	if (rdev->is_atom_bios && (ASIC_IS_AVIVO(rdev) || radeon_r4xx_atom))
 		radeon_atombios_init_crtc(dev, radeon_crtc);
 	else
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_mode.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_mode.h
index 3243e5e01432..5f61facafe36 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_mode.h
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_mode.h
@@ -328,7 +328,6 @@  enum radeon_flip_status {
 struct radeon_crtc {
 	struct drm_crtc base;
 	int crtc_id;
-	u16 lut_r[256], lut_g[256], lut_b[256];
 	bool enabled;
 	bool can_tile;
 	bool cursor_out_of_bounds;

Comments

On 2018-01-10 09:18 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> This is an oversight from
> 
> commit 42585395ebc1034a98937702849669f17eadb35f
> Author: Peter Rosin <peda@axentia.se>
> Date:   Thu Jul 13 18:25:36 2017 +0200
> 
>     drm: radeon: remove dead code and pointless local lut storage
> 
> Cc: Peter Rosin <peda@axentia.se>
> Cc: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>
> Cc: Michel Dänzer <michel.daenzer@amd.com>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@intel.com>
> ---
>  drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_display.c | 6 ------
>  drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_mode.h    | 1 -
>  2 files changed, 7 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_display.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_display.c
> index dfda5e0ed166..d22f4b6a8828 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_display.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_display.c
> @@ -698,12 +698,6 @@ static void radeon_crtc_init(struct drm_device *dev, int index)
>  	radeon_crtc->mode_set.num_connectors = 0;
>  #endif
>  
> -	for (i = 0; i < 256; i++) {
> -		radeon_crtc->lut_r[i] = i << 2;
> -		radeon_crtc->lut_g[i] = i << 2;
> -		radeon_crtc->lut_b[i] = i << 2;
> -	}
> -
>  	if (rdev->is_atom_bios && (ASIC_IS_AVIVO(rdev) || radeon_r4xx_atom))
>  		radeon_atombios_init_crtc(dev, radeon_crtc);
>  	else
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_mode.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_mode.h
> index 3243e5e01432..5f61facafe36 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_mode.h
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_mode.h
> @@ -328,7 +328,6 @@ enum radeon_flip_status {
>  struct radeon_crtc {
>  	struct drm_crtc base;
>  	int crtc_id;
> -	u16 lut_r[256], lut_g[256], lut_b[256];
>  	bool enabled;
>  	bool can_tile;
>  	bool cursor_out_of_bounds;
> 

I posted a more complete patch (also removing the now unused local i)
for this in
https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dri-devel/2017-December/161116.html
. I'd like to only apply this once the problem discussed in that thread
is fixed though, but unfortunately the other patch I attached there
doesn't seem to fix it. What's the current plan for fixing this issue?