On Thursday 07 April 2016 03:26 PM, Thulasimani, Sivakumar wrote:
On 4/7/2016 1:54 PM, Ander Conselvan De Oliveira wrote:
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
its possible that manufacturers might not have filled sink count dpcd
registers.
i would prefer ignoring sink_count for edp rather than hardcoding 1 in
case of edp.
Also just to be safe, we should add a similar check in short pulse
handling too
where we check sink count.
Shubhangi, can you share a patch to handle this asap ?
regards,
Sivakumar
Shared the patch.. https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/79924/
Shubhangi.
/*
* 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
