On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 01:59:52PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 10:03:39AM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote: > > On Wed, 03 Oct 2018, Dhinakaran Pandiyan <dhinakaran.pandiyan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > MST is enabled by default on all platforms that support it. I don't think > > > we should be providing a switch to work around MST issues as the feature > > > has been supported for a while now. Let's kill this module parameter > > > that we also do not test in CI. > > > > I agree we don't want to provide this to users to *work around* > > issues. But maybe we want something like this to *debug* issues? > > Yes. I was using it for that just a few days ago when looking at a bug. so it seems useful and it means that we need to move to debugfs :) > > Also the mst code lacks a bunch of features I think we'd want (remote dpcd, > remote i2c write, maybe others). It's still the unloved stepchild with no > one really focusing on improving it. > > So I think it's way too early to think about removing this outright. > Not sure we should ever remove it really. What happens if in the future > most of our ci displays are mst capable? Do we just not test sst at all? > Granted a modparam is a probably a bit too coarse for that, but I think > we may want *something* to force sst. > > -- > Ville Syrjälä > Intel > _______________________________________________ > Intel-gfx mailing list > Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
