Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/2] Give up on edid retries when i2c tells us that bus is not there

2011-10-31 Thread Chris Wilson
On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 11:12:29 -0200, Eugeni Dodonov wrote: > This allows to avoid talking to a non-existent bus repeatedly until we > finally timeout. The non-existent bus is signalled by -ENXIO error, > provided by i2c_algo_bit:bit_doAddress call. > > As the advantage of such change, all the oth

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/2] Give up on edid retries when i2c tells us that bus is not there

2011-10-17 Thread Eugeni Dodonov
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 20:41, Keith Packard wrote: > On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 19:07:51 -0200, Eugeni Dodonov > wrote: > > > From what I've checked, the other return error value in this context > could > > be -EREMOTEIO, which could be caused by transmission error so it should > be > > retried. > > O

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/2] Give up on edid retries when i2c tells us that bus is not there

2011-10-17 Thread Keith Packard
On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 19:07:51 -0200, Eugeni Dodonov wrote: > From what I've checked, the other return error value in this context could > be -EREMOTEIO, which could be caused by transmission error so it should be > retried. Oh, there's -ENOMEM, -EINVAL and probably a few others down in the bowels

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/2] Give up on edid retries when i2c tells us that bus is not there

2011-10-17 Thread Eugeni Dodonov
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 18:41, Keith Packard wrote: > On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 11:12:29 -0200, Eugeni Dodonov < > eugeni.dodo...@intel.com> wrote: > > > + if (ret == -ENXIO) { > > + DRM_DEBUG_KMS("drm: skipping non-existent adapter > %s\n", > > +

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/2] Give up on edid retries when i2c tells us that bus is not there

2011-10-17 Thread Keith Packard
On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 11:12:29 -0200, Eugeni Dodonov wrote: > + if (ret == -ENXIO) { > + DRM_DEBUG_KMS("drm: skipping non-existent adapter %s\n", > + adapter->name); > + break; > + } This seems goo

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/2] Give up on edid retries when i2c tells us that bus is not there

2011-10-17 Thread Eugeni Dodonov
This allows to avoid talking to a non-existent bus repeatedly until we finally timeout. The non-existent bus is signalled by -ENXIO error, provided by i2c_algo_bit:bit_doAddress call. As the advantage of such change, all the other routines which use drm_get_edid would benefit for this timeout. Th

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/2] Give up on edid retries when i2c tells us that bus is not there

2011-10-07 Thread Eugeni Dodonov
This allows to avoid talking to a non-existent bus repeatedly until we finally timeout. The non-existent bus is signalled by -ENXIO error, provided by i2c_algo_bit:bit_doAddress call. As the advantage of such change, all the other routines which use drm_get_edid would benefit for this timeout. As

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/2] Give up on edid retries when i2c tells us that bus is not there

2011-10-07 Thread Eugeni Dodonov
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 11:08, Jesse Barnes wrote: > On Thu, 6 Oct 2011 20:30:35 -0300 > Eugeni Dodonov wrote: > > > From: Eugeni Dodonov > > > > This allows to avoid talking to a non-existent bus repeatedly until we > > finally timeout. The non-existent bus is signalled by -ENXIO error, > > pr

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/2] Give up on edid retries when i2c tells us that bus is not there

2011-10-07 Thread Jesse Barnes
On Thu, 6 Oct 2011 20:30:35 -0300 Eugeni Dodonov wrote: > From: Eugeni Dodonov > > This allows to avoid talking to a non-existent bus repeatedly until we > finally timeout. The non-existent bus is signalled by -ENXIO error, > provided by i2c_algo_bit:bit_doAddress call. > > As the advantage o

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/2] Give up on edid retries when i2c tells us that bus is not there

2011-10-06 Thread Eugeni Dodonov
From: Eugeni Dodonov This allows to avoid talking to a non-existent bus repeatedly until we finally timeout. The non-existent bus is signalled by -ENXIO error, provided by i2c_algo_bit:bit_doAddress call. As the advantage of such change, all the other routines which use drm_get_edid would benefi