On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 05:45:29PM +, Vivi, Rodrigo wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-10-20 at 08:38 -0700, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> > On Tue, 2015-10-20 at 09:39 +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 10:02:21AM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 20 Oct 2015, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
>
On Tue, 2015-10-20 at 08:38 -0700, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-10-20 at 09:39 +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 10:02:21AM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> > > On Tue, 20 Oct 2015, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> > > > We have an inconsistency on our code on using
> > > > intel_dp_d
On Tue, 2015-10-20 at 09:39 +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 10:02:21AM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> > On Tue, 20 Oct 2015, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> > > We have an inconsistency on our code on using
> > > intel_dp_dpcd_read_wake with
> > > retries and when using drm_dp_dpcd_read
On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 10:02:21AM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Oct 2015, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> > We have an inconsistency on our code on using intel_dp_dpcd_read_wake with
> > retries and when using drm_dp_dpcd_read helper without retry.
>
> We're supposed to do the retries when the si
On Tue, 20 Oct 2015, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> We have an inconsistency on our code on using intel_dp_dpcd_read_wake with
> retries and when using drm_dp_dpcd_read helper without retry.
We're supposed to do the retries when the sink may be in a power down
state. We're not very good at tracking that,
