From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] drm/i915: Check VBIOS value for
	determining LVDS dual channel mode, too
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2012 21:28:13 +0100
Message-ID: <s5hehsphcwy.wl%tiwai@suse.de>
References: <1331934073-24463-1-git-send-email-tiwai@suse.de>
	<1331934073-24463-2-git-send-email-tiwai@suse.de>
	<861uosdtjo.fsf@sumi.keithp.com> <s5hzkbfhd37.wl%tiwai@suse.de>
	<86bonvcarm.fsf@sumi.keithp.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.6 - "Maruoka")
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 mx2.suse.de (cantor2.suse.de [195.135.220.15])
	by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B2BE9E737
	for <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>;
	Sun, 18 Mar 2012 13:28:14 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <86bonvcarm.fsf@sumi.keithp.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+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 <keithp@keithp.com>
Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, hcb@chaoticmind.net
List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org

At Sat, 17 Mar 2012 12:01:17 -0700,
Keith Packard wrote:
> 
> <#part sign=pgpmime>
> On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 08:59:56 +0100, Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de> wrote:
> 
> > Well, the LVDS reg data isn't in lvds_dvo_timing but in lvds_fp_timing,
> > thus you need to look at a different entry in anyway.
> 
> Right, a parallel function which returns the lvds_fp_timing structure
> instead of pulling the data out of it. Just makes the code look more
> like the existing stuff. And, if we need more data from the
> lvds_fp_timing in the future, we'll have it available directly.

Ah, OK I got your point now.  This makes sense.
I'll rewrite the patch tomorrow.


> > I skipped it to simplify the code, but that'd be safer, indeed.
> 
> Reducing the chances for regressions is my primary concern here; most
> people boot their machines with the lid open, so if we avoid the new
> code in that case, we'll be more likely to not break things.

Yes, that's my biggest concern too.
So I'd really appreciate if anyone else checks whether the patch
doesn't break, at least (and helps sometimes).


thanks,

Takashi

> 
> -- 
> keith.packard@intel.com
>