On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 08:47:54AM -0700, Rodrigo Vivi wrote: > We have in the history some changes on this behaviour, but > there are many platforms out there and we don't know all panels. > > VBT might not be reliable but it knows the platform better than > us usually. Or at least it should. > So, first of all let's respect the VBT. If something bad happens > again with one platform or another it is better to create a > quirk than to bypass the VBT. > > Cc: Mihai Dontu <mihai.dontu@xxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Dhinakaran Pandiyan <dhinakaran.pandiyan@xxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@xxxxxxxxx> > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c | 5 +---- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c > index c3abae4..e65e2c3 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c > @@ -788,14 +788,11 @@ void intel_psr_init(struct drm_device *dev) > } > > /* Set link_standby x link_off defaults */ > - if (IS_HASWELL(dev) || IS_BROADWELL(dev)) > - /* HSW and BDW require workarounds that we don't implement. */ > - dev_priv->psr.link_standby = false; This patch has nothing to do with respecting the VBT or not, it's about whether the comment that we still require w/a is valid or not. That's not even mentioned in the changelog. -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
