On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 2:54 PM, Keith Packard <keithp at keithp.com> wrote:
> On Tue, ?1 Nov 2011 23:20:26 -0700, Keith Packard <keithp at keithp.com>
> wrote:
>
>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? intel_dp = enc_to_intel_dp(encoder);
>> - ? ? ? ? ? ? if (intel_dp->base.type == INTEL_OUTPUT_DISPLAYPORT) {
>> + ? ? ? ? ? ? if (intel_dp->base.type == INTEL_OUTPUT_DISPLAYPORT ||
>> is_pch_edp(intel_dp)) {
>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? lane_count = intel_dp->lane_count;
>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? break;
>> - ? ? ? ? ? ? } else if (is_edp(intel_dp)) {
>> + ? ? ? ? ? ? } else if (is_cpu_edp(intel_dp)) {
>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? lane_count = dev_priv->edp.lanes;
>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? break;
>
> Thinking about this one more time -- if we ever want to use
> dev_priv->edp.lanes, we should use it in
> intel_dp_max_lane_count. intel_dp_set_m_n should use
> intel_dp->lane_count unconditionally as that's the value we've used
> everywhere else for mode setting.
>
> Perhaps we should use it for monitors that don't include the
> MAX_LANE_COUNT field in the dpcd? Perhaps we should use it on all eDP
> monitors?
FWIW, we rely on the DPCD field for eDP just like DP. Our vbios LCD
tables don't contain DP lane or rate info.
Alex
