On Wed, 2011-11-09 at 10:07 -0800, Keith Packard wrote: > On Wed, 09 Nov 2011 17:30:29 +0100, Michel Alexandre Salim > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Additional note: while I've not touched the line since it does not > > affect me, it seems that i915_panel_use_ssc *cannot* be less than 0 > > since that variable is declared as unsigned. > > Oops. That's the bug here -- we're supposed to make it so that the > command line can override the quirks, but there's no way to use a quirk > given the mis-declared parameter. Ah, now everything makes sense. > > This is untested... > Tested and it works fine: - without extra parameter, the blacklist is used - with i915.lvds_use_ssc=1, SSC use is enforced and the display turns black on my unsupported hardware - with i915.lvds_use_ssc=0, SSC is disabled
(ps the PGP/MIME signature made it hard to just extract the git-formatted email; I ended up just editing the message by hand before 'git am') > From e64ecadef40e3c2035cd4e9b967ffd83489bdea0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Keith Packard <[email protected]> > Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 09:57:50 -0800 > Subject: [PATCH] drm/i915: Module parameters using '-1' as default must be > signed type > > Testing i915_panel_use_ssc for the default value was broken, so the > driver would never autodetect the correct value. > > Signed-off-by: Keith Packard <[email protected]> Reviewed-by: Michel Alexandre Salim <[email protected]> Tested-by: Michel Alexandre Salim <[email protected]> Should I send the patch that I applied with those added lines? Probably not necessary. Thanks, -- Michel _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
