Re: [PATCH resend 14/15] drm/i915/dsi: Call MIPI_SEQ_TEAR_ON and DISPLAY_ON for cmd-mode (untested)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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




[Index of Archives]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]
  Powered by Linux