<#part sign=pgpmime> On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 08:59:56 +0100, Takashi Iwai <tiwai at suse.de> wrote: > Well, the LVDS reg data isn't in lvds_dvo_timing but in lvds_fp_timing, > thus you need to look at a different entry in anyway. Right, a parallel function which returns the lvds_fp_timing structure instead of pulling the data out of it. Just makes the code look more like the existing stuff. And, if we need more data from the lvds_fp_timing in the future, we'll have it available directly. > I skipped it to simplify the code, but that'd be safer, indeed. Reducing the chances for regressions is my primary concern here; most people boot their machines with the lid open, so if we avoid the new code in that case, we'll be more likely to not break things. -- keith.packard at intel.com
