On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 08:39:07PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 10:22:24AM -0700, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
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.
Yeah, meant to write >=9. Cnl not really a thing, but I would get
confused if we started skipping it in some places while still
handling it in others. I guess we may want to consider just nuking
cnl totally everywhere, but until that time I think we should keep
things consistent.
considering mesa already did that, then yes. And agreed about being
consistent while that doesn't happen.
thanks
Lucas De Marchi
>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?
I guess we could stuff it all in there somehow. Not sure.
Maybe Jani has thoughts on this?
--
Ville Syrjälä
Intel
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
