From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Give up on edid retries when i2c tells
 us that bus is not there
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2011 07:08:37 -0700
Message-ID: <20111007070837.45d8ac60@jbarnes-e6510>
References: <1317943836-7362-1-git-send-email-eugeni@dodonov.net>
	<1317943836-7362-2-git-send-email-eugeni@dodonov.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org>
Received: from oproxy8-pub.bluehost.com (oproxy8-pub.bluehost.com
	[69.89.22.20])
	by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D4C789E7B6
	for <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>;
	Fri,  7 Oct 2011 07:08:40 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <1317943836-7362-2-git-send-email-eugeni@dodonov.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/options/intel-gfx>,
	<mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/intel-gfx>
List-Post: <mailto:intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>
List-Help: <mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx>,
	<mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=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: Eugeni Dodonov <eugeni@dodonov.net>
Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, Eugeni Dodonov <eugeni.dodonov@intel.com>
List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org

On Thu,  6 Oct 2011 20:30:35 -0300
Eugeni Dodonov <eugeni@dodonov.net> wrote:

> From: Eugeni Dodonov <eugeni.dodonov@intel.com>
> 
> This allows to avoid talking to a non-existent bus repeatedly until we
> finally timeout. The non-existent bus is signalled by -ENXIO error,
> provided by i2c_algo_bit:bit_doAddress call.
> 
> As the advantage of such change, all the other routines which use
> drm_get_edid would benefit for this timeout.
> 
> As the disadvantage comes the fact that I only tested it on Intel
> cards, so I am not sure whether it would work on nouveau and radeon.
> 
> This change should potentially fix
> https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=41059

I think I like this, assuming i2c doesn't lie to us.  But won't we spam
the log quite a bit?  We do detection a lot because userspace often
polls it and performs detection at app startup a lot.

Jesse