From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Keith Packard Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/i915/lvds: Always use the presence pin for LVDS on PCH Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 09:13:35 -0800 Message-ID: <86pqdoc4lc.fsf@sumi.keithp.com> References: <1328780153-3945-1-git-send-email-chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from keithp.com (home.keithp.com [63.227.221.253]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 832A19E8A7 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 09:13:41 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <1328780153-3945-1-git-send-email-chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> 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: Chris Wilson , intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org <#part sign=pgpmime> On Thu, 9 Feb 2012 09:35:53 +0000, Chris Wilson wrote: > With the introduction of the PCH, we gained an LVDS presence pin but we > continued to use the existing logic that asserted that LVDS was only > supported on certain mobile chipsets. However, there are desktop > IronLake systems with LVDS attached which we fail to detect. So for PCH, > trust the LVDS presence pin and quirk all the lying manufacturers. Uh. I don't see where this is using the LVDS presence pin. Am I just missing something? -- keith.packard@intel.com