At Sat, 17 Mar 2012 12:01:17 -0700, Keith Packard wrote: > > <#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. Ah, OK I got your point now. This makes sense. I'll rewrite the patch tomorrow. > > 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. Yes, that's my biggest concern too. So I'd really appreciate if anyone else checks whether the patch doesn't break, at least (and helps sometimes). thanks, Takashi > > -- > keith.packard at intel.com >
