On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 04:56:07PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 03:27:59PM +0100, Lespiau, Damien wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 4:05 PM, Paulo Zanoni <przanoni at gmail.com> wrote: > > > From: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni at intel.com> > > > > > > Just set the only bit we need, everything else is either ignored on > > > HDMI or should be set to zero. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni at intel.com> > > > > Is the assumption that intel_enable_ddi() will only ever be used by > > the HDMI encore likely to hold true for ever? looks like a general > > function that could be used by others to me. Also intel_disable_ddi() > > read the register back, so it'd be unfair to only touch > > intel_enable_ddi() if you want to do that. > > > > I'd just stay on the safe side and retain the programming here. > > I'd prefer to go safe and do our own programming ;-) Imo it's better to > fully program a register than to rely on random garbage left behind by the > bios - usually that allows us to bring up hw a bit quicker, but in the end > results in some nasty bug reports once hw starts shipping. For the disable > side things are usually not that important, since we need to assume that > our own code (or our own hw state readout) set things up correctly. > > Wrt the general usefullness of, I guess the dp patches will changed that. > I'll just merge this one here. Ok, I've merged this series up to this patch. The last two patches are pending an r-b from a volunteer ;-) Thanks, Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch
