<#part sign=pgpmime> On Thu, 9 Feb 2012 09:35:53 +0000, Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk> wrote: > With the introduction of the PCH, we gained an LVDS presence pin but we > continued to use the existing logic that asserted that LVDS was only > supported on certain mobile chipsets. However, there are desktop > IronLake systems with LVDS attached which we fail to detect. So for PCH, > trust the LVDS presence pin and quirk all the lying manufacturers. Uh. I don't see where this is using the LVDS presence pin. Am I just missing something? -- keith.packard at intel.com
