On Tue, 24 Feb 2015 21:52:16 +0100 Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 10:37:10AM -0800, Bob Paauwe wrote: > > On Tue, 24 Feb 2015 14:57:48 +0100 > > Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > As Jani points out we already have vbt headaches, it would be good if we > > > only have those once ;-) > > > -Daniel > > > > I've been trying to think of a better way but not really coming up with > > something that scales well. EMGD took the approach of create > > configuration for only those values that we had customer requests for. > > And that was primarily just the panel power up/down timing sequence and > > some backlight control. We never tried to replicate everything that > > could be set via vbt. > > If it's only a very few select things we could just add them as atomic > properties to connectors. No need for anything special, and we could even > use that to debug panel issues at runtime. > > We need a lot of the dp things already anyway for the dp validation stuff, > but since that was debug Dave shot down my idea to just go with props. But > here we have another user, and this one will have full abi compat > requirements. So no longer any reasons to not go with props imo. > > Or else we just smash an entire vbt into acpi, for my that's ok (we need > to deal with vbt anyway). > -Daniel Funny... As I was looking at the atomic code I had the same thought to use atomic properties but dismissed it because I thought it would be too much overhead to do that for all of the vbt flags/values. But it it's limited, at least initially, to what we know we need that would work and this whole bit magically goes away. Thanks! Looks like it's time for me to really start digging into atomic. Bob _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
