On Thu, 2016-04-07 at 10:58 +0300, Jani Nikula wrote: > On Wed, 06 Apr 2016, Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 04/04/16 12:41, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > > > > > > On 04/04/16 12:08, Jani Nikula wrote: > > > > On Mon, 04 Apr 2016, Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > wrote: > > > > > On 01/04/16 08:41, Ander Conselvan De Oliveira wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, 2016-03-31 at 12:38 +0000, Patchwork wrote: > > > > > > > == Series Details == > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Series: series starting with [1/5] drm/i915: Splitting > > > > > > > intel_dp_detect > > > > > > > URL : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/5044/ > > > > > > > State : success > > > > > > > > > > > > I pushed those to dinq. > > > > > > > > > > This series seems to break eDP detection on BDW RVP. > > > > > > > > I presume this is due to the sink count check. Can you add debug logging > > > > to print intel_dp->sink_count after it's been read in > > > > intel_dp_get_dpcd() please? > > > > > > intel_dp->sink_count is zero here. (raw value, before the > > > DP_GET_SINK_COUNT.) > > > > > > Also, intel_dp_dpcd_read_wake suggests a possibility for reading garbage > > > with not overly confident wording for the workaround there. > > > > > > > Then the question is, is this just because you have an RVP with who > > > > knows what panel, or do we have to take into account potentially broken > > > > panels too? Then I assume the fix would be to to ignore sink count for > > > > eDP. > > > > > > No idea. :) > > > > I could really use a solution for this. My only development platform is > > incapacitated unless I revert this series which, apart from the extra > > work when preparing and sending out patches this is taking, including > > lost time waiting on CI which I suspect dislikes patches from top of > > unknown bases, I think it won't be so easy to continue doing so when the > > conflicts start arriving. :( > > Ander, Shubhangi? > > Would something like this be sensible? Tvrtko, can you give it a go? > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c > index da0c3d29fda8..0890e71db188 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c > @@ -3799,6 +3799,9 @@ intel_dp_get_dpcd(struct intel_dp *intel_dp) > */ > intel_dp->sink_count = DP_GET_SINK_COUNT(intel_dp->sink_count); > > + if (is_edp(intel_dp)) > + intel_dp->sink_count = max(intel_dp->sink_count, 1); I couldn't find anything in the spec that would make SINK_COUNT behave differently for eDP, but eDP with 0 sinks simply doesn't make sense, so this seems sensible to me. Ander > /* > * SINK_COUNT == 0 and DOWNSTREAM_PORT_PRESENT == 1 implies that > * a dongle is present but no display. Unless we require to know > > BR, > Jani. > > > _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
