On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 04:13:52PM -0300, Paulo Zanoni wrote:
> 2015-08-12 12:44 GMT-03:00 <ville.syrj...@linux.intel.com>:
> > From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrj...@linux.intel.com>
> >
> > The PORTA HPD defines are not BXT specific. They also exist on SPT,
> > and partially already on LPT:LP.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrj...@linux.intel.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c | 2 +-
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h | 10 +++++-----
> > 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c
> > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c
> > index 8a1e35e..d12106c 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c
> > @@ -1248,7 +1248,7 @@ static bool bxt_port_hotplug_long_detect(enum port
> > port, u32 val)
> > {
> > switch (port) {
> > case PORT_A:
> > - return val & BXT_PORTA_HOTPLUG_LONG_DETECT;
> > + return val & PORTA_HOTPLUG_LONG_DETECT;
> > case PORT_B:
> > return val & PORTB_HOTPLUG_LONG_DETECT;
> > case PORT_C:
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h
> > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h
> > index ed2d150..0e9990b 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h
> > @@ -6002,11 +6002,11 @@ enum skl_disp_power_wells {
> >
> > /* digital port hotplug */
> > #define PCH_PORT_HOTPLUG 0xc4030 /* SHOTPLUG_CTL */
> > -#define BXT_PORTA_HOTPLUG_ENABLE (1 << 28)
> > -#define BXT_PORTA_HOTPLUG_STATUS_MASK (3 << 24)
> > -#define BXT_PORTA_HOTPLUG_NO_DETECT (0 << 24)
> > -#define BXT_PORTA_HOTPLUG_SHORT_DETECT (1 << 24)
> > -#define BXT_PORTA_HOTPLUG_LONG_DETECT (2 << 24)
> > +#define PORTA_HOTPLUG_ENABLE (1 << 28) /* LPT:LP+ & BXT */
>
> Although the doc for LPT _suggests_ this is only for LPT:LP, it
> doesn't mark this bit as LPT:LP-specific just like it marks all the
> other LPT:LP-specific bits in every register, so I wonder if this is
> really LPT:LP or if there's another way to find this out, like some
> strap or VBT bit.
Hmm. Indeed. There is that note about the enable being in the north
on DevLPT:H. I guess that's what gave me the idea for this patch. But
the rest of the text just talks about PCH being on the same package or
not. Not sure if the two conditions are entirely the same thing.
For HSW the north register says we need this on DevHSW:ULT. For BDW it
refers us to a package type indication in FUSE_STRAP3, but the only
relevant looking bit is the ULT mode bit, which it also says is
currently unused and should be ignored :(
Art, could you help us out here? How should we actually determine
(on HSW/BDW) whether to enable the DDI A HPD in the north, south,
or both?
> Reviewed-by: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zan...@intel.com>
>
> > +#define PORTA_HOTPLUG_STATUS_MASK (3 << 24) /* SPT+ & BXT */
> > +#define PORTA_HOTPLUG_NO_DETECT (0 << 24) /* SPT+ & BXT */
> > +#define PORTA_HOTPLUG_SHORT_DETECT (1 << 24) /* SPT+ & BXT */
> > +#define PORTA_HOTPLUG_LONG_DETECT (2 << 24) /* SPT+ & BXT */
> > #define PORTD_HOTPLUG_ENABLE (1 << 20)
> > #define PORTD_PULSE_DURATION_2ms (0 << 18)
> > #define PORTD_PULSE_DURATION_4_5ms (1 << 18)
> > --
> > 2.4.6
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Intel-gfx mailing list
> > Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
> > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
>
>
>
> --
> Paulo Zanoni
--
Ville Syrjälä
Intel OTC
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
