On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 07:58:21PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:50:10AM -0700, Keith Packard wrote:
> > On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 18:27:28 +0200, Daniel Vetter
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Can you elaborate a bit why this is no longer needed? Jesse seems to have
> > > introduced th
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:50:10AM -0700, Keith Packard wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 18:27:28 +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>
> > Can you elaborate a bit why this is no longer needed? Jesse seems to have
> > introduced this spefically for edp panels in d209848d61794968. If this
> > becomes rendunda
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 06:09:35PM -0700, Keith Packard wrote:
> There's no reason to enforce a 300ms delay during eDP mode setting.
>
> Signed-off-by: Keith Packard
Can you elaborate a bit why this is no longer needed? Jesse seems to have
introduced this spefically for edp panels in d209848d617
On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 20:09:59 +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On further strolling through bspec to review later patches I've noticed
> that PCH_PP_ON_DELAYS and PCH_PP_OFF_DELAYS seem to have values for
> power on->backlight on and backlight off->panel off delays. Maybe we
> should use these?
Yeah
On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 20:09:59 +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On further strolling through bspec to review later patches I've noticed
> that PCH_PP_ON_DELAYS and PCH_PP_OFF_DELAYS seem to have values for
> power on->backlight on and backlight off->panel off delays. Maybe we
> should use these?
Yeah
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 07:58:21PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:50:10AM -0700, Keith Packard wrote:
> > On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 18:27:28 +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> >
> > > Can you elaborate a bit why this is no longer needed? Jesse seems to have
> > > introduced this sp
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:50:10AM -0700, Keith Packard wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 18:27:28 +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>
> > Can you elaborate a bit why this is no longer needed? Jesse seems to have
> > introduced this spefically for edp panels in d209848d61794968. If this
> > becomes rendunda
On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 18:27:28 +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> Can you elaborate a bit why this is no longer needed? Jesse seems to have
> introduced this spefically for edp panels in d209848d61794968. If this
> becomes rendundant due to your panel power sequencing fixes, maybe move it
> down the ser
On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 18:27:28 +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> Can you elaborate a bit why this is no longer needed? Jesse seems to have
> introduced this spefically for edp panels in d209848d61794968. If this
> becomes rendundant due to your panel power sequencing fixes, maybe move it
> down the ser
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 06:09:35PM -0700, Keith Packard wrote:
> There's no reason to enforce a 300ms delay during eDP mode setting.
>
> Signed-off-by: Keith Packard
Can you elaborate a bit why this is no longer needed? Jesse seems to have
introduced this spefically for edp panels in d209848d617
There's no reason to enforce a 300ms delay during eDP mode setting.
Signed-off-by: Keith Packard
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c |7 ---
1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
index 44fef5e..f0c
There's no reason to enforce a 300ms delay during eDP mode setting.
Signed-off-by: Keith Packard
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c |7 ---
1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
index 44fef5e..f0c
12 matches
Mail list logo
