On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 06:45:16PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 11:09:27PM -0700, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
Direction on gen9+ was to stop reading the straps and only rely on the
VBT for marking the port presence. This happened while dealing with
WaIgnoreDDIAStrap and instead of using it as a WA, it should now be the
normal flow. See commit 885d3e5b6f08 ("drm/i915/display: fix comment on
skl straps").
For gen 10 it's hard to say if this will work or not since I can't test
it, so leave it with the same behavior as before.
For PCH_TGP we should still rely on the VBT to make ports E and F not
available.
Signed-off-by: Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@xxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Anusha Srivatsa <anusha.srivatsa@xxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c | 36 ++++++--------------
1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c
index d62ce9c87748..5a03cbba0280 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c
@@ -10883,34 +10883,25 @@ static void intel_setup_outputs(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
intel_ddi_init(dev_priv, PORT_B);
intel_ddi_init(dev_priv, PORT_C);
vlv_dsi_init(dev_priv);
+ } else if (DISPLAY_VER(dev_priv) == 9) {
Should be >=10 I presume? Or did we want ot handle cnl along with
why >= 10? The only DISPLAY_VER() == 10 platforms out there are handled
in the branch above. I can make it >= 9, but not >= 10. Intention was to
handle skl/kbl here.
icl perhaps? Doesn't really matter I suppose, but it's surely
going to consfuse the me the next time I read this.
+ intel_ddi_init(dev_priv, PORT_A);
+ intel_ddi_init(dev_priv, PORT_B);
+ intel_ddi_init(dev_priv, PORT_C);
+ intel_ddi_init(dev_priv, PORT_D);
+ intel_ddi_init(dev_priv, PORT_E);
+ intel_ddi_init(dev_priv, PORT_F);
DDI F isn't a thing on skl/derivatives, so I'd probably skip it on
those. Could just use IS_CNL_WITH_PORT_F() to match the looks of
the icl stuff.
I was actually looking at ICL and thinking "shouldn't this hack for
broken VBT be hidden in intel_bios.c?" I think we should trust what we
parse from VBT everywhere except of course in intel_bios.c where we
fixup when the VBT is wrong. Thoughts?
Thanks
Lucas De Marchi
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
