On Fri, 2010-05-07 at 14:41 -0700, Eric Anholt wrote:
> Applied those two.
>
> The fact that we're exposing 2 connectors for this situation is bogus in
> how the KMS architecture is supposed to work, right? I mean, we've got
> 2 "outputs" in this encoder going to one physical connector. The use
On Tue, 04 May 2010 14:17:28 -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-04-23 at 16:16 -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
> > Multifunction SDVO cards stopped working after 14571b4, and would report
> > something that looked remarkably like an ADD2 SPD ROM instead of EDID.
> > This appears to be because DD
On Wed, 2010-05-05 at 15:38 +0800, ykzhao wrote:
> Hi, Ajax
>
> Using the BIOS-defined value in VBT can fix the bug you mentioned.
> but the problem is that it is static and would still have problem if
> user does outputs swap on a multiple function SDVO device at run
> time(E.g. The exte
On Wed, 2010-04-28 at 23:58 +0800, Adam Jackson wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-04-28 at 10:15 +0800, Zhenyu Wang wrote:
> > On 2010.04.23 16:16:12 -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
> > > Multifunction SDVO cards stopped working after 14571b4, and would report
> > > something that looked remarkably like an ADD2 SPD
On Fri, 2010-04-23 at 16:16 -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
> Multifunction SDVO cards stopped working after 14571b4, and would report
> something that looked remarkably like an ADD2 SPD ROM instead of EDID.
> This appears to be because DDC bus selection was utterly horked by that
> commit; controlled_o
On Wed, 2010-04-28 at 10:15 +0800, Zhenyu Wang wrote:
> On 2010.04.23 16:16:12 -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
> > Multifunction SDVO cards stopped working after 14571b4, and would report
> > something that looked remarkably like an ADD2 SPD ROM instead of EDID.
> > This appears to be because DDC bus se
On 2010.04.23 16:16:12 -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
> Multifunction SDVO cards stopped working after 14571b4, and would report
> something that looked remarkably like an ADD2 SPD ROM instead of EDID.
> This appears to be because DDC bus selection was utterly horked by that
> commit; controlled_output
On Fri, 2010-04-23 at 16:16 -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
> So, instead of that, let's just use the DDC bus the child device table
> tells us to use. I'm guessing at the bitmask and shifting from VBIOS
> dumps, but it can't possibly be worse.
Except,
> - /* Corresponds to SDVO_CONTROL_BUS_DDCx
On Sat, 2010-04-24 at 04:16 +0800, Adam Jackson wrote:
> Multifunction SDVO cards stopped working after 14571b4, and would report
> something that looked remarkably like an ADD2 SPD ROM instead of EDID.
> This appears to be because DDC bus selection was utterly horked by that
> commit; controlled_o
Multifunction SDVO cards stopped working after 14571b4, and would report
something that looked remarkably like an ADD2 SPD ROM instead of EDID.
This appears to be because DDC bus selection was utterly horked by that
commit; controlled_output was no longer always a single bit, so
intel_sdvo_select_d
10 matches
Mail list logo
