Hi,
On 24-02-17 18:02, Bob Paauwe wrote:
On Mon, 20 Feb 2017 15:08:44 +0100
Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
According to the spec we should call MIPI_SEQ_TEAR_ON and DISPLAY_ON
on enable for cmd-mode, just like we already call their counterparts
on disable. Note: untested, my panel is a vid-mode panel.
Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dsi.c | 2 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dsi.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dsi.c
index 90263d6..a001e43 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dsi.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dsi.c
@@ -680,6 +680,8 @@ static void intel_dsi_pre_enable(struct intel_encoder *encoder,
if (is_cmd_mode(intel_dsi)) {
for_each_dsi_port(port, intel_dsi->ports)
I915_WRITE(MIPI_MAX_RETURN_PKT_SIZE(port), 8 * 4);
+ intel_dsi_exec_vbt_sequence(intel_dsi, MIPI_SEQ_TEAR_ON);
As with the TEAR_OFF, should this only be done for command mode? Or is
it just a no-op for video mode and doesn't matter?
In this case we are actually in a "if (is_cmd_mode(intel_dsi)) {" code
block (the if is visible in the diff context).
Which I guess also shows that we really need to add the guard to the
other path, so as to be consistent.
Note as mentioned in the commit msg:
untested, my panel is a vid-mode panel.
+ intel_dsi_exec_vbt_sequence(intel_dsi, MIPI_SEQ_DISPLAY_ON);
} else {
msleep(20); /* XXX */
for_each_dsi_port(port, intel_dsi->ports)
Regards,
Hans
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
