On Mon, 08 Aug 2011 13:24:12 -0700 Keith Packard <keithp@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, 8 Aug 2011 13:01:28 -0700, Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, 08 Aug 2011 12:53:31 -0700 > > Keith Packard <keithp@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > On Mon, 8 Aug 2011 11:49:54 -0700, Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > Yep, it's safe and possible to do on pre-PCH as well. For panel > > > > fitting we do need to do an actual power cycle when going from > > > > non-native back to native iirc, but we can still leave them unlocked so > > > > we don't have to worry about the lock/unlock sequence everywhere. > > > > > > Hidden in the unlock patch was a call to intel_lvds_disable from > > > intel_lvds_prepare -- that *always* turns off the LVDS for mode > > > setting. Do we care enough about LVDS mode setting performance that we > > > should try leave the optimization in place that doesn't turn off the > > > backlight when switching between modes? > > > > We hate flicker right? But generally yes it's safer to just turn it > > off all the time. > > I'll leave the optimization in place then; it's been there for a while > so at least it shouldn't cause any regressions. > > How about this? Has the advantage of not lying in the commit message > anymore. > > From 092719152aa5a235d6678798a34dc784d5cec2ad Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Keith Packard <keithp@xxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2011 10:33:12 -0700 > Subject: [PATCH 2/5] drm/i915: Leave LVDS registers unlocked > > 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 <keithp@xxxxxxxxxx> Yeah looks like a nice improvement. Reviewed-by: Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> -- Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
