On 20-Oct-14 9:38 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 06:20:06PM +0530, Vandana Kannan wrote:
Actually set values into PPS related registers. This implementation is
equivalent to intel_dp_panel_power_sequencer_registers where the values
saved intially are written into registers.
Signed-off-by: Vandana Kannan <vandana.kan...@intel.com>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c | 80 ++------------------------------------
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h | 3 ++
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_panel.c | 70 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3 files changed, 76 insertions(+), 77 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
index a433c5f..ca11eb1 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
@@ -248,7 +248,7 @@ unpack_aux(uint32_t src, uint8_t *dst, int dst_bytes)
}
/* hrawclock is 1/4 the FSB frequency */
-static int
+int
intel_hrawclk(struct drm_device *dev)
{
struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = dev->dev_private;
@@ -281,11 +281,6 @@ intel_hrawclk(struct drm_device *dev)
}
}
-static void
-intel_dp_init_panel_power_sequencer_registers(struct drm_device *dev,
- struct intel_dp *intel_dp,
- struct edp_power_seq *out);
-
static void pps_lock(struct intel_dp *intel_dp)
{
struct intel_digital_port *intel_dig_port = dp_to_dig_port(intel_dp);
@@ -4716,76 +4711,6 @@ static void intel_dp_init_panel_power_timestamps(struct
intel_dp *intel_dp)
intel_dp->last_backlight_off = jiffies;
}
-static void
-intel_dp_init_panel_power_sequencer_registers(struct drm_device *dev,
- struct intel_dp *intel_dp,
- struct edp_power_seq *seq)
Hm, moving this function looks like it would be clearer as part of patch
1?
Otherwise I've done a (very) quick read-through of your series and on a
high level it looks sane I think. So please sign someone up for the
detailed review (and make sure that person is aware of that AR) so I can
merge this.
Thanks, Daniel
Thanks Daniel..
I went through the LVDS and DSI parts. If software delays are used for
both, would it really add more value to have the delays in a function in
intel_panel.c and call whenever required ?
I'm thinking directly calling a msleep would be simpler but that would
mean the PPS part wont be in one place in intel_panel.c.
Let me know what you think about this..
- Vandana
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
