From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Keith Packard Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: Fix invalid backpanel values for GEN3 or older chips Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 22:15:41 -0800 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0202499561==" Return-path: Received: from keithp.com (home.keithp.com [63.227.221.253]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9C679E7D1 for ; Thu, 17 Nov 2011 07:17:44 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: 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: Takashi Iwai Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Daniel Mack , harald@redhat.com List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org --===============0202499561== Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature" --=-=-= Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 18:14:55 +0100, Takashi Iwai wrote: > While refactoring of backlight control code in commit [a95735569: > drm/i915: Refactor panel backlight controls], the handling of the bit > 0 of duty-cycle was gone except for pineview. This resulted in invalid > register values for old chips like 915GM. When the bit 0 is set, the > backlight is turned off suddenly. I'm looking at the mentioned patch and I don't see how that managed to correctly handle bit 0; is this the patch that managed to break this? =2D-=20 keith.packard@intel.com --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iQIVAwUBTsSmjjYtFsjWk68qAQjSvRAAqkEtCdoEeR1cjy3bWsOhBe13cKxvHw/r EfAceq3cwptp3LkpujhKXYTT3UCGqI24T4+saXO31UpcziuB6qf98nX8waNEiP/h 0bcg45OsjsDSh52VtHQGTSk66GhPq0EKgi9W9PuEp1i5FX7+1qVU2rCkuZmOgZ0P nHTrMatet84wFx5A/WOQ1RwDxb4L1hDOaaXDuWNI8jjeJoSmvyc8RnfsYNwcvY7l 4E1E/2aSB52qPS6b/LsqAS20D3D0ww3nLb2U6HMTc93Y7ZLW0epyHtYE/rpfT/3s 8y2H9fPM9jtQAXZzKMAG/JDx/mVW8Cezp/cVnyLnVSFqDTNtc0ZbVu0/gtMxjS2L P0lkM0Kb8uHeuTTBaOha6GYOc2yRSclb8pz2bohqxoAUAs4DxjvarfIt2PZEZ6gs Xy5y+a8bHZg/V8woBfr+EBmRjqohP21MsanbwepxncjQ4cUkvmacOFwAtSnUW8S0 e/ymwge1ZF7Bin9mKTLDeQtm701ig8UBxW/OLFBDmnvlPB2nO0vJtGP1Xse+j3sg jZ1ulvILdvekKEI+eynWM+Lpi5YVis6qKDOj9oCsAuZY2lrZQw4J+RBA1LenwKKA /3zM8pw7dgRVuoL6lqEGZVSpGHWPuKkNGmfDscLi+iLFdfmX2oaPmsKg4EmJQACy HnSNIzwj/qc= =3+i6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- --===============0202499561== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx --===============0202499561==-- From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932255Ab1KQPRr (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Nov 2011 10:17:47 -0500 Received: from home.keithp.com ([63.227.221.253]:44945 "EHLO keithp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932219Ab1KQPRp (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Nov 2011 10:17:45 -0500 From: Keith Packard To: Takashi Iwai Cc: Daniel Mack , Chris Wilson , Jesse Barnes , harald@redhat.com, intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: Fix invalid backpanel values for GEN3 or older chips In-Reply-To: References: User-Agent: Notmuch/0.6.1-66-ga900dda (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.3.1 (i486-pc-linux-gnu) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 22:15:41 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --=-=-= Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 18:14:55 +0100, Takashi Iwai wrote: > While refactoring of backlight control code in commit [a95735569: > drm/i915: Refactor panel backlight controls], the handling of the bit > 0 of duty-cycle was gone except for pineview. This resulted in invalid > register values for old chips like 915GM. When the bit 0 is set, the > backlight is turned off suddenly. I'm looking at the mentioned patch and I don't see how that managed to correctly handle bit 0; is this the patch that managed to break this? =2D-=20 keith.packard@intel.com --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iQIVAwUBTsSmjjYtFsjWk68qAQjSvRAAqkEtCdoEeR1cjy3bWsOhBe13cKxvHw/r EfAceq3cwptp3LkpujhKXYTT3UCGqI24T4+saXO31UpcziuB6qf98nX8waNEiP/h 0bcg45OsjsDSh52VtHQGTSk66GhPq0EKgi9W9PuEp1i5FX7+1qVU2rCkuZmOgZ0P nHTrMatet84wFx5A/WOQ1RwDxb4L1hDOaaXDuWNI8jjeJoSmvyc8RnfsYNwcvY7l 4E1E/2aSB52qPS6b/LsqAS20D3D0ww3nLb2U6HMTc93Y7ZLW0epyHtYE/rpfT/3s 8y2H9fPM9jtQAXZzKMAG/JDx/mVW8Cezp/cVnyLnVSFqDTNtc0ZbVu0/gtMxjS2L P0lkM0Kb8uHeuTTBaOha6GYOc2yRSclb8pz2bohqxoAUAs4DxjvarfIt2PZEZ6gs Xy5y+a8bHZg/V8woBfr+EBmRjqohP21MsanbwepxncjQ4cUkvmacOFwAtSnUW8S0 e/ymwge1ZF7Bin9mKTLDeQtm701ig8UBxW/OLFBDmnvlPB2nO0vJtGP1Xse+j3sg jZ1ulvILdvekKEI+eynWM+Lpi5YVis6qKDOj9oCsAuZY2lrZQw4J+RBA1LenwKKA /3zM8pw7dgRVuoL6lqEGZVSpGHWPuKkNGmfDscLi+iLFdfmX2oaPmsKg4EmJQACy HnSNIzwj/qc= =3+i6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--