On Tue, 26 Apr 2016, Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 01:27:39PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
>> Only support NC GPIOs for now, and assume the vlv gpio table only has NC
>> GPIOs for now.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dsi_panel_vbt.c | 4 ++--
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dsi_panel_vbt.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dsi_panel_vbt.c
>> index c7281c391d0f..a1cc8533cff5 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dsi_panel_vbt.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dsi_panel_vbt.c
>> @@ -203,8 +203,8 @@ static void vlv_exec_gpio(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
>> map = &vlv_gpio_table[gpio_index];
>>
>> if (dev_priv->vbt.dsi.seq_version >= 3) {
>> - DRM_DEBUG_KMS("GPIO element v3 not supported\n");
>> - return;
>> + /* XXX: this assumes vlv_gpio_table only has NC GPIOs. */
>> + port = IOSF_PORT_GPIO_NC;
>
> NC GPIOs start from index 0, and we accept them up to ARRAY_SIZE(vlv_gpio_table)
> which only holds NC GPIOs as the comment says. Since SC GPIOs would come after
> NC GPIOS in index, they would thus have been rejected already by the earlier
> check. Makes sense, but I had to actually read the code to see it.
Hey, at least I left you a breadcrumb in the form of that comment
there. ;)
Pushed 1-2 to drm-intel-next-queued, thanks for the review.
BR,
Jani.
>
> Reviewed-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>> } else {
>> if (gpio_source == 0) {
>> port = IOSF_PORT_GPIO_NC;
>> --
>> 2.1.4
--
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
