From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Imre Deak Subject: Re: More fastboot bits Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 14:15:32 +0200 Message-ID: <1363781732.13528.9.camel@intelbox> References: <1361309508-4901-1-git-send-email-jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org> Reply-To: imre.deak@intel.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mga09.intel.com (mga09.intel.com [134.134.136.24]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B249CE609D for ; Wed, 20 Mar 2013 05:15:35 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1361309508-4901-1-git-send-email-jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org Errors-To: intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org To: Jesse Barnes Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org On Tue, 2013-02-19 at 13:31 -0800, Jesse Barnes wrote: > This one adds some extra checks on top of Chris's last set: > - check for panel fit modes when inheriting from the BIOS > - update pfit state at pipe_set_base time I missed this version of the patchset and reviewed the previous one :/ Sending it with a v2 subject prefix with a proper In-reply-to header would've been nice, consider the high traffic on this list. Some of the comments from that review are still valid, so I'll copy them over. > It also changes the mode set vs flip checking to include the non-fb case > (e.g. if the BIOS fb was too small for the native mode), since we might > still be able to flip in that case. > > Finally, it includes a clock_get routine for ilk+. I'd appreciate if > someone could test this out on a machine where VBIOS supports the native > panel mode, so the kernel can boot from the boot loader in the native > mode. In that case, it should actually fastboot and avoid the whole > mode set/panel power sequence. My ilk doesn't seem to start with a native mode, so can't test it there. Would it be possible to test this with reloading the module? --Imre