On Fri, 6 Apr 2012 16:07:56 -0700 Ben Widawsky <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Apr 2012 11:46:27 -0700 > Jesse Barnes <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Just noticed this while verifying the VGA disable code. > > > > Signed-off-by: Jesse Barnes <[email protected]> > > --- > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c | 2 +- > > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c index 3abebb5..d13e8a4 100644 > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c > > @@ -9475,7 +9475,7 @@ static void i915_disable_vga(struct drm_device > > *dev) vga_reg = VGACNTRL; > > > > vga_get_uninterruptible(dev->pdev, VGA_RSRC_LEGACY_IO); > > - outb(1, VGA_SR_INDEX); > > + outb(SR01, VGA_SR_INDEX); > > sr1 = inb(VGA_SR_DATA); > > outb(sr1 | 1<<5, VGA_SR_DATA); > > vga_put(dev->pdev, VGA_RSRC_LEGACY_IO); > > Maybe in addition to this, remove the duplicated definitions > SRX_INDEX > SRX_DATA > > and then move the defined bits down to where VGA_SR_DATA is. > > Regardless of whether or not you decide to do that. The important part got chopped off :( Reviewed-by: Ben Widawsky <[email protected]> _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
