From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Chris Wilson Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/i915/lvds: Always use the presence pin for LVDS on PCH Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 17:33:23 +0000 Message-ID: References: <1328780153-3945-1-git-send-email-chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> <86pqdoc4lc.fsf@sumi.keithp.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 3385D9E7CB for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 09:33:52 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <86pqdoc4lc.fsf@sumi.keithp.com> 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: Keith Packard , intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org On Thu, 09 Feb 2012 09:13:35 -0800, Keith Packard wrote: > <#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? That code already existed in intel_lvds_init(): if (HAS_PCH_SPLIT(dev)) { if (I915_READ(PCH_LVDS) & LVDS_DETECTED) == 0) return false ... } -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre