On 28 June 2012 21:18, Jassi Brar <jaswinder.singh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 28 June 2012 20:57, Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@xxxxxx> wrote: >>> > By the way, when the device is in system suspend, we surely won't detect >>> > the HPD even if we kept the HPD always enabled. So there we'll miss the >>> > HPD interrupt anyway, and the EDID cache would be invalid. >>> > >>> If omapdss already handles the possibility of display changed during >>> suspend, I think we should be good :) >> >> Hmm I'm not sure I understand what you mean. I was referring to your >> patch, which invalidated the EDID cache only on HPD interrupt when the >> cable is unplugged. And we'd miss that interrupt when the board is in >> system suspend, even if we otherwise kept the HPD interrupt always >> enabled. >> > I meant before stale-edid, we face potential problem of omapdss > behaving badly to the displays switched during suspend ? > OK, I think I get now what you mean. We do need to invalidate edid-cache in the suspend path, irrespective of how omapdss behaves. Thanks. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
