From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jesse Barnes Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] drm/i915: Leave LVDS registers unlocked Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2011 09:30:10 -0700 Message-ID: <20110808093010.487c4559@jbarnes-desktop> References: <1312653248-3487-1-git-send-email-keithp@keithp.com> <1312653248-3487-3-git-send-email-keithp@keithp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from oproxy6-pub.bluehost.com (oproxy6-pub.bluehost.com [67.222.54.6]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E0B889E7FE for ; Mon, 8 Aug 2011 09:30:23 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1312653248-3487-3-git-send-email-keithp@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 Cc: Dave Airlie , intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org On Sat, 6 Aug 2011 10:54:06 -0700 Keith Packard wrote: > There's no reason to relock them; it just makes operations more > complex. This fixes DPMS where the panel registers were locked making > the disable not work. > > Signed-off-by: Keith Packard Yep, looks fine. The only think we might want to sprinkle about are checks for panel off so we can avoid visible corruption if we whack timing or fb stuff while the panel is on. Reviewed-by: Jesse Barnes -- Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center