On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 10:42:33PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 11:17:55AM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote: > > FIXME: This is based on some HW being used for a demo. We should > > probably wait until we have confirmation on the IDs before upstreaming > > this patch. > > I don't mind too much if we need to fixup the device after the fact, but > checking whether this is the shipping configuration shouldn't hurt. > > More important is probably whether there's any quanta platform with the > same sdev/svendor ids without a fused pch. In that case I guess we need to > check for something else (maybe some fuse flags in the pch?). I highly doubt it, but I don't know how to prove it. From what I gather on the internet and parsing through the limited uses in the kernel today, the subvendor/subdevice is unique. > > Anyway, I've done a pretty careful review of everything, mostly looking to > reduce the impact of this feature on our code. So if you respin and > quickly test this on an real ivb (just for paranoia) and the special box > I'll merge it right away. Imo the maintenance burned is really small, so > I'm not against merging this in the demo stage. I've rebased on nightly and tried to apply all the requests (assuming I didn't miss any). Because I am at home today, and testing displayless at home is sort of a pain, this is untested on both regular IVB (the rebase did have a conflict), and the Quanta server. I can test it on regular IVB tomorrow, and I'll begin trying to get it tested on the Quanta thing ASAP, but it could be a few days. Meanwhile, I've pushed the respun patches here: http://cgit.freedesktop.org/~bwidawsk/drm-intel/log/?h=pch_displayless > > Cheers, Daniel Thanks for the review. [snip] > -- > Daniel Vetter > Software Engineer, Intel Corporation > +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch -- Ben Widawsky, Intel Open Source Technology Center
