At Mon, 2 Jul 2012 19:55:17 +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 7:51 PM, Takashi Iwai <tiwai at suse.de> wrote: > > It's just for avoiding the possible regressions by this change. > > We definitely need a fix for HD+ panels ASAP, while other panels work > > in the current code. Introducing the extra disable code affecting all > > laptops sounds too risky for 3.5 kernel, as we can't cover all cases. > > But for HD+ panels, we did fairly good coverage, as there are still > > little models. > > > > If you find this limitation nonsense and we are brave enough, let's > > do it without complication. > > Hm, I've hoped I could chicken out and to the non-limited thing for > 3.6 ... as you say, it's a bit late to do such a change in after -rc5. > So I guess the question is: How much does not having this patch break > panels, i.e. can some mad vt-switching restore them or are they > bricked for good until reset? On HP laptops I've tested, the screen can be partially recovered from B/W garbages when you once disable LVDS and enable again. But then the screen starts flickering. And much worse, this flickering remains even after the cold boot! I have to put the machine rest for a while to restore the screen completely. thanks, Takashi
