On Mon, 8 Aug 2011 22:31:40 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Yup. There's a small set of systems that appear to provide no firmware
> control mechanism.
There were a few comments in that old thread about the patch as
submitted; is there an updated version?
--
keith.pack...@intel.com
pgpzj6SE
On Mon, Aug 08, 2011 at 02:27:46PM -0700, Keith Packard wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Aug 2011 11:54:22 -0700, Kamal Mostafa wrote:
>
> > So what happened to that patch? Did it get lost or is it stuck
> > somewhere? I humbly ask that it be re-reviewed and pushed upstream.
>
> Afraid it was forgotten --
On Mon, 08 Aug 2011 11:54:22 -0700, Kamal Mostafa wrote:
> So what happened to that patch? Did it get lost or is it stuck
> somewhere? I humbly ask that it be re-reviewed and pushed upstream.
Afraid it was forgotten -- Matthew, is this patch still useful?
--
keith.pack...@intel.com
pgpoFdt
On Mon, 08 Aug 2011 13:24:12 -0700
Keith Packard wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Aug 2011 13:01:28 -0700, Jesse Barnes
> wrote:
> > On Mon, 08 Aug 2011 12:53:31 -0700
> > Keith Packard wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, 8 Aug 2011 11:49:54 -0700, Jesse Barnes
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Yep, it's safe and possibl
On Mon, 8 Aug 2011 13:01:28 -0700, Jesse Barnes
wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Aug 2011 12:53:31 -0700
> Keith Packard wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 8 Aug 2011 11:49:54 -0700, Jesse Barnes
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Yep, it's safe and possible to do on pre-PCH as well. For panel
> > > fitting we do need to do an act
On Mon, 08 Aug 2011 12:53:31 -0700
Keith Packard wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Aug 2011 11:49:54 -0700, Jesse Barnes
> wrote:
>
> > Yep, it's safe and possible to do on pre-PCH as well. For panel
> > fitting we do need to do an actual power cycle when going from
> > non-native back to native iirc, but w
On Mon, 8 Aug 2011 11:49:54 -0700, Jesse Barnes
wrote:
> Yep, it's safe and possible to do on pre-PCH as well. For panel
> fitting we do need to do an actual power cycle when going from
> non-native back to native iirc, but we can still leave them unlocked so
> we don't have to worry about the
Several months ago, Matthew Garrett submitted a set of backlight
patches[1], all but one of which landed in 2.6.39-rc1. The one that
never did get merged is the bit that exposes the "intel_backlight"
interface:
[PATCH 2/5] i915: Add native backlight control
http://lists.freedeskto
On Mon, 08 Aug 2011 11:40:06 -0700
Keith Packard wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Aug 2011 09:27:19 -0700, Jesse Barnes
> wrote:
>
> > ...to catch places like this where the wrong register gets used. :)
>
> Ouch! There are only two places we *should* have these loops, one when
> turning it off, another whe
On Mon, 08 Aug 2011 11:42:56 -0700
Keith Packard wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Aug 2011 09:30:10 -0700, Jesse Barnes
> wrote:
>
> > Yep, looks fine. The only think we might want to sprinkle about are
> > checks for panel off so we can avoid visible corruption if we whack
> > timing or fb stuff while the
On Mon, 8 Aug 2011 09:30:10 -0700, Jesse Barnes
wrote:
> Yep, looks fine. The only think we might want to sprinkle about are
> checks for panel off so we can avoid visible corruption if we whack
> timing or fb stuff while the panel is on.
So, I'd like to know if we could unlock the panel regis
On Mon, 8 Aug 2011 09:27:19 -0700, Jesse Barnes
wrote:
> ...to catch places like this where the wrong register gets used. :)
Ouch! There are only two places we *should* have these loops, one when
turning it off, another when turning it on. There's a couple of loops
which just need to be removed
On Mon, 8 Aug 2011 09:30:10 -0700, Jesse Barnes
wrote:
> Yep, looks fine. The only think we might want to sprinkle about are
> checks for panel off so we can avoid visible corruption if we whack
> timing or fb stuff while the panel is on.
Yeah, could do. Would be nice to somehow get the LVDS c
After a couple weeks of sporadic tinkering trying to get my DisplayPort to work
with an Apple Cinema display under Arch Linux (3.0) (mini displayport LED
model), I came across a post on the Ubuntu forums mentioning the intel-gfx irc
channel having helped solve the same issue.
The post is here:
On Sat, 6 Aug 2011 10:54:08 -0700
Keith Packard wrote:
> Just an extra parameter which isn't actually needed.
>
> Signed-off-by: Keith Packard
> ---
Reviewed-by: Jesse Barnes
--
Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center
___
Intel-gfx mail
On Sat, 6 Aug 2011 10:54:07 -0700
Keith Packard wrote:
> CPT pipe select is different from previous generations (using two bits
> instead of one). All of the paths from intel_disable_pch_ports were
> not making this distinction.
>
> Mode setting with pipe A turned off would then also force all
On Sat, 6 Aug 2011 10:54:06 -0700
Keith Packard wrote:
> There's no reason to relock them; it just makes operations more
> complex. This fixes DPMS where the panel registers were locked making
> the disable not work.
>
> Signed-off-by: Keith Packard
Yep, looks fine. The only think we might w
On Sat, 6 Aug 2011 10:54:05 -0700
Keith Packard wrote:
> During mode setting, check to make sure the panel power sequencing has
> completed before doing further operations on the device. This
> uncovered errors with DPMS not turning the device off as it was left locked.
>
> Signed-off-by: Keith
18 matches
Mail list logo
