On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 2:54 PM, Keith Packard <keithp@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Nov 2011 23:20:26 -0700, Keith Packard <keithp@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> intel_dp = enc_to_intel_dp(encoder);
>> - if (intel_dp->base.type == INTEL_OUTPUT_DISPLAYPORT) {
>> + if (intel_dp->base.type == INTEL_OUTPUT_DISPLAYPORT || is_pch_edp(intel_dp)) {
>> lane_count = intel_dp->lane_count;
>> break;
>> - } else if (is_edp(intel_dp)) {
>> + } else if (is_cpu_edp(intel_dp)) {
>> lane_count = dev_priv->edp.lanes;
>> break;
>
> Thinking about this one more time -- if we ever want to use
> dev_priv->edp.lanes, we should use it in
> intel_dp_max_lane_count. intel_dp_set_m_n should use
> intel_dp->lane_count unconditionally as that's the value we've used
> everywhere else for mode setting.
>
> Perhaps we should use it for monitors that don't include the
> MAX_LANE_COUNT field in the dpcd? Perhaps we should use it on all eDP
> monitors?
FWIW, we rely on the DPCD field for eDP just like DP. Our vbios LCD
tables don't contain DP lane or rate info.
Alex
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
