On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 01:22:14PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> In sequence block v3 these are gracefully skipped anyway, but add the
> functions so we can have some debug breadcrumbs.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dsi_panel_vbt.c | 16 ++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dsi_panel_vbt.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dsi_panel_vbt.c
> index 3e840a526f53..7dd850760c4d 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dsi_panel_vbt.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dsi_panel_vbt.c
> @@ -344,6 +344,20 @@ static const u8 *mipi_exec_i2c(struct intel_dsi *intel_dsi, const u8 *data)
> return data + *(data + 6) + 7;
> }
>
> +static const u8 *mipi_exec_spi(struct intel_dsi *intel_dsi, const u8 *data)
> +{
> + DRM_DEBUG_KMS("Skipping SPI element execution\n");
> +
> + return data + *(data + 5) + 6;
> +}
> +
> +static const u8 *mipi_exec_pmic(struct intel_dsi *intel_dsi, const u8 *data)
> +{
> + DRM_DEBUG_KMS("Skipping PMIC element execution\n");
> +
> + return data + 14;
Should that be 15?
> +}
> +
> typedef const u8 * (*fn_mipi_elem_exec)(struct intel_dsi *intel_dsi,
> const u8 *data);
> static const fn_mipi_elem_exec exec_elem[] = {
> @@ -351,6 +365,8 @@ static const fn_mipi_elem_exec exec_elem[] = {
> [MIPI_SEQ_ELEM_DELAY] = mipi_exec_delay,
> [MIPI_SEQ_ELEM_GPIO] = mipi_exec_gpio,
> [MIPI_SEQ_ELEM_I2C] = mipi_exec_i2c,
> + [MIPI_SEQ_ELEM_SPI] = mipi_exec_spi,
> + [MIPI_SEQ_ELEM_PMIC] = mipi_exec_pmic,
> };
>
> /*
> --
> 2.1.4
>
> _______________________________________________
> Intel-gfx mailing list
> Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
--
Ville Syrjälä
Intel OTC
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
