On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 10:10:24 -0400 Adam Jackson <a...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 10/10/11 7:22 PM, Keith Packard wrote: > > On Mon, 10 Oct 2011 14:28:52 -0700, Jesse Barnes<jbar...@virtuousgeek.org> > > wrote: > > > >> It's needed for 3 pipe support as well as just regular functionality > >> (e.g. DisplayPort). > > > > Any explanation on how you get sync without this? As in, why did this > > ever work? > > To a first approximation, it didn't. I was never able to get anything > reliably lit up besides the boot output (and only that one; hotplug > after was a disaster). > > I don't have register dumps handy to compare BIOS setup with this > change, but I could if needed. > > It still seems entirely magical and probably wrong in some situations. > And I'm thrilled to see that PPT is functionally different from CPT > (seriously, stop doing that) instead of just moving bit definitions > around (seriously, stop doing that). But this change is massively > better than before. Without composite sync, FDI needs frame/line sync (the fsync/lsync mentioned in the docs), which means extra wires between the CPU and PCH. Some boards don't have these and so we need to use composite. For the same reason, if FDI B and C are sharing lanes, we need to use composite or we won't have enough lines to go around. I've asked the hardware guys whether using composite on a board that supports fsync/lsync is ok generally; if so just defaulting to that everywhere should be fine. -- Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
