On Tue, 21 Dec 2010 12:12:42 -0800, Keith Packard kei...@keithp.com wrote:
On Tue, 21 Dec 2010 19:55:15 +, Chris Wilson ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk
wrote:
The test we do is simply whether the LVDS i2c pins are addressable. That
requires differentiating between an IO error and a NAK,
On Mon, 20 Dec 2010 18:53:14 -0800, Jesse Barnes jbar...@virtuousgeek.org
wrote:
On Tue, 21 Dec 2010 12:43:38 +1000
Dave Airlie airl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 6:05 AM, Jesse Barnes jbar...@virtuousgeek.org
wrote:
Add a DMI match entry for the SDV to indicate it has
On Tue, 21 Dec 2010 11:36:44 +, Chris Wilson ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk
wrote:
I think once upon a time I found a reliable method in the docs:
intel_lvds_ddc_probe(). However that only seemed to work over GMBUS...
That probably depends on the panel having DDC, which many don't, right?
Maybe
On Tue, 21 Dec 2010 10:14:51 -0800, Keith Packard kei...@keithp.com wrote:
On Tue, 21 Dec 2010 11:36:44 +, Chris Wilson ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk
wrote:
I think once upon a time I found a reliable method in the docs:
intel_lvds_ddc_probe(). However that only seemed to work over
On Tue, 21 Dec 2010 19:55:15 +, Chris Wilson ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk
wrote:
The test we do is simply whether the LVDS i2c pins are addressable. That
requires differentiating between an IO error and a NAK, which at present
is only possible using GMBUS. The reference to this method I found
Add a DMI match entry for the SDV to indicate it has no LVDS present.
Signed-off-by: Jesse Barnes jbar...@virtuousgeek.org
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lvds.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lvds.c
index aa23070..2f383f0 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lvds.c
+++
On Tue, 21 Dec 2010 12:43:38 +1000
Dave Airlie airl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 6:05 AM, Jesse Barnes jbar...@virtuousgeek.org
wrote:
Add a DMI match entry for the SDV to indicate it has no LVDS present.
Sounds wrong, generally the SDVs can get an LVDS panel plugged into
