From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Damien Lespiau <damien.lespiau@intel.com>
Subject: Re: Supporting fused display configurations
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 18:25:42 +0000
Message-ID: <20131205182542.GC30349@strange.icx.intel.com>
References: <1386251782-21176-1-git-send-email-damien.lespiau@intel.com>
	<20131205140933.GE3197@nuc-i3427.alporthouse.com>
	<20131205142108.GB30349@strange.icx.intel.com>
	<20131205181920.GA13831@intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org>
Received: from mga09.intel.com (mga09.intel.com [134.134.136.24])
	by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CCEBFAE38
	for <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>;
	Thu,  5 Dec 2013 10:25:44 -0800 (PST)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20131205181920.GA13831@intel.com>
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@lists.freedesktop.org
Errors-To: intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org
To: Ben Widawsky <benjamin.widawsky@intel.com>
Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org

On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 10:19:20AM -0800, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 02:21:08PM +0000, Damien Lespiau wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 02:09:33PM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > > Patches look fine. Just relying on fuse registers being correct is like
> > > relying on vbt being correct, fraught with anxiety.
> > 
> > Well, I believe those bits are directly reflecting the fuses/straps
> > programmed (the sames that will actually disable hw), so it should be
> > better than VBT. On the other hand, that's the reason why I only check
> > from IVB on and not from ILK to not take unecessary risks on platforms
> > with no known fused config.
> 
> I'm surprised by this. We had a semi-lengthy mail on the matter
> internally, and ISTR there was no way to actually make this work for all
> cases. I guess I need to go re-read that.

Oh? I must have missed it or it wasn't broadcasted. Mind digging out the
thread again?

> > In any case, if someone with such a device could test the series :)
> 
> IMHO the patches can't be merged until it can be verified. If you want
> to call that a nak-until-then on patch 6, do. I'd much rather have a
> dynamic solution like this though.

Yes, of course! (I'd like to have the writable info in any case).

-- 
Damien