Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: prefer VBT modes for SVDO-LVDS over EDID
Chris Wilson writes: On Sun, Jun 09, 2013 at 11:28:12PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 11:16 PM, Chris Wilson ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk wrote: On Sun, Jun 09, 2013 at 10:58:38PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: In commit 53d3b4d7778daf15900867336c85d3f8dd70600c Author: Egbert Eich e...@suse.de Date: Tue Jun 4 17:13:21 2013 +0200 drm/i915/sdvo: Use intel_sdvo-ddc instead of intel_sdvo-i2c for DDC Ebgert Eich fixed a long-standing bug where we simply used a non-working i2c controller to read the EDID for SDVO-LVDS panels. Unfortunately some machines seem to not be able to cope with the mode provided in the EDID (specifically they seem to not be able to cope with a 4x pixel mutliplier instead of a 2x one). Since it took forever to notice the breakage it's fairly safe to assume that at least for SDVO-LVDS panels the VBT contains fairly sane data. So just switch around the order and use VBT modes first. Cc: Egbert Eich e...@suse.de Cc: Chris Wilson ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk Bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=65524 Cc: sta...@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter daniel.vet...@ffwll.ch I can accept the argument that we need to prefer the VBT mode here to paper over the apparent regression, but to not pass on the full EDID modes seems dubious. I'm not sure there's any value in additional modes. We can't really support frequency switching over sdvo (it'd very likely require a mutliplier change) and for everything else we only ever let the fixed mode through the fixup hook. I am trying not to generalise from the broken behaviour on this machine. On another machine, there may be some value in the extra modes. Select the sanest default we can, then let the user go nuts with the extra information. While I'm not a fan of setting non-native modes on panels this seems to be a requirement in some environments - not sure if there are any real world use cases but at least many QA test scenarios seem to include such modes. So adding the EDID modes (unflagging the preferred bit!) would be what I'd opt for - admittedly for a very selfish reason: it will spare me of lengthy, pointless discussions with some partners' QA departments next time we update the Intel driver. Once again we go out of our ways to accomodate the most broken devices by imposing more limitations on all others as well. At one point we may even have to give in face the grim reality and start blacklisting some of the broken crap. And since we are so much into bikeshedding here - maybe you could fix my name in the comment ;) Cheers, Egbert. ___ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
[Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: prefer VBT modes for SVDO-LVDS over EDID
In
commit 53d3b4d7778daf15900867336c85d3f8dd70600c
Author: Egbert Eich e...@suse.de
Date: Tue Jun 4 17:13:21 2013 +0200
drm/i915/sdvo: Use intel_sdvo-ddc instead of intel_sdvo-i2c for DDC
Egbert Eich fixed a long-standing bug where we simply used a
non-working i2c controller to read the EDID for SDVO-LVDS panels.
Unfortunately some machines seem to not be able to cope with the mode
provided in the EDID (specifically they seem to not be able to cope
with a 4x pixel mutliplier instead of a 2x one).
Since it took forever to notice the breakage it's fairly safe to
assume that at least for SDVO-LVDS panels the VBT contains fairly sane
data. So just switch around the order and use VBT modes first.
v2: Also add EDID modes just in case, and spell Egbert correctly.
Cc: Egbert Eich e...@suse.de
Cc: Chris Wilson ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk
Bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=65524
Cc: sta...@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter daniel.vet...@ffwll.ch
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sdvo.c | 10 ++
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sdvo.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sdvo.c
index 4c47b44..2a449d1 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sdvo.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sdvo.c
@@ -1777,10 +1777,13 @@ static void intel_sdvo_get_lvds_modes(struct
drm_connector *connector)
* arranged in priority order.
*/
intel_ddc_get_modes(connector, intel_sdvo-ddc);
- if (list_empty(connector-probed_modes) == false)
- goto end;
- /* Fetch modes from VBT */
+ /*
+* Fetch modes from VBT. For SDVO prefer the VBT mode since some
+* SDVO-LVDS transcoders can't cope with the EDID mode. Since
+* drm_mode_probed_add adds the mode at the head of the list we add it
+* last.
+*/
if (dev_priv-sdvo_lvds_vbt_mode != NULL) {
newmode = drm_mode_duplicate(connector-dev,
dev_priv-sdvo_lvds_vbt_mode);
@@ -1792,7 +1795,6 @@ static void intel_sdvo_get_lvds_modes(struct
drm_connector *connector)
}
}
-end:
list_for_each_entry(newmode, connector-probed_modes, head) {
if (newmode-type DRM_MODE_TYPE_PREFERRED) {
intel_sdvo-sdvo_lvds_fixed_mode =
--
1.7.10.4
___
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: prefer VBT modes for SVDO-LVDS over EDID
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 09:47:58AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: In commit 53d3b4d7778daf15900867336c85d3f8dd70600c Author: Egbert Eich e...@suse.de Date: Tue Jun 4 17:13:21 2013 +0200 drm/i915/sdvo: Use intel_sdvo-ddc instead of intel_sdvo-i2c for DDC Egbert Eich fixed a long-standing bug where we simply used a non-working i2c controller to read the EDID for SDVO-LVDS panels. Unfortunately some machines seem to not be able to cope with the mode provided in the EDID (specifically they seem to not be able to cope with a 4x pixel mutliplier instead of a 2x one). Since it took forever to notice the breakage it's fairly safe to assume that at least for SDVO-LVDS panels the VBT contains fairly sane data. So just switch around the order and use VBT modes first. v2: Also add EDID modes just in case, and spell Egbert correctly. Cc: Egbert Eich e...@suse.de Cc: Chris Wilson ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk Bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=65524 Cc: sta...@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter daniel.vet...@ffwll.ch Tested-by: Chris Wilson ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre ___ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: prefer VBT modes for SVDO-LVDS over EDID
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 09:10:51AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 09:47:58AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: In commit 53d3b4d7778daf15900867336c85d3f8dd70600c Author: Egbert Eich e...@suse.de Date: Tue Jun 4 17:13:21 2013 +0200 drm/i915/sdvo: Use intel_sdvo-ddc instead of intel_sdvo-i2c for DDC Egbert Eich fixed a long-standing bug where we simply used a non-working i2c controller to read the EDID for SDVO-LVDS panels. Unfortunately some machines seem to not be able to cope with the mode provided in the EDID (specifically they seem to not be able to cope with a 4x pixel mutliplier instead of a 2x one). Since it took forever to notice the breakage it's fairly safe to assume that at least for SDVO-LVDS panels the VBT contains fairly sane data. So just switch around the order and use VBT modes first. v2: Also add EDID modes just in case, and spell Egbert correctly. Cc: Egbert Eich e...@suse.de Cc: Chris Wilson ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk Bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=65524 Cc: sta...@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter daniel.vet...@ffwll.ch Tested-by: Chris Wilson ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk Picked up for -fixes, thanks for testing. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch ___ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
[Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: prefer VBT modes for SVDO-LVDS over EDID
In
commit 53d3b4d7778daf15900867336c85d3f8dd70600c
Author: Egbert Eich e...@suse.de
Date: Tue Jun 4 17:13:21 2013 +0200
drm/i915/sdvo: Use intel_sdvo-ddc instead of intel_sdvo-i2c for DDC
Ebgert Eich fixed a long-standing bug where we simply used a
non-working i2c controller to read the EDID for SDVO-LVDS panels.
Unfortunately some machines seem to not be able to cope with the mode
provided in the EDID (specifically they seem to not be able to cope
with a 4x pixel mutliplier instead of a 2x one).
Since it took forever to notice the breakage it's fairly safe to
assume that at least for SDVO-LVDS panels the VBT contains fairly sane
data. So just switch around the order and use VBT modes first.
Cc: Egbert Eich e...@suse.de
Cc: Chris Wilson ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk
Bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=65524
Cc: sta...@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter daniel.vet...@ffwll.ch
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sdvo.c | 23 ---
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sdvo.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sdvo.c
index 4c47b44..da3da8d 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sdvo.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sdvo.c
@@ -1771,17 +1771,9 @@ static void intel_sdvo_get_lvds_modes(struct
drm_connector *connector)
struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = connector-dev-dev_private;
struct drm_display_mode *newmode;
- /*
-* Attempt to get the mode list from DDC.
-* Assume that the preferred modes are
-* arranged in priority order.
-*/
- intel_ddc_get_modes(connector, intel_sdvo-ddc);
- if (list_empty(connector-probed_modes) == false)
- goto end;
-
- /* Fetch modes from VBT */
- if (dev_priv-sdvo_lvds_vbt_mode != NULL) {
+ /* Fetch modes from VBT. For SDVO prefer the VBT mode since some
+* SDVO-LVDS transcoders can't cope with the EDID mode. */
+ if (dev_priv-vbt.sdvo_lvds_vbt_mode != NULL) {
newmode = drm_mode_duplicate(connector-dev,
dev_priv-sdvo_lvds_vbt_mode);
if (newmode != NULL) {
@@ -1789,9 +1781,18 @@ static void intel_sdvo_get_lvds_modes(struct
drm_connector *connector)
newmode-type = (DRM_MODE_TYPE_PREFERRED |
DRM_MODE_TYPE_DRIVER);
drm_mode_probed_add(connector, newmode);
+
+ goto end;
}
}
+ /*
+* Attempt to get the mode list from DDC.
+* Assume that the preferred modes are
+* arranged in priority order.
+*/
+ intel_ddc_get_modes(connector, intel_sdvo-ddc);
+
end:
list_for_each_entry(newmode, connector-probed_modes, head) {
if (newmode-type DRM_MODE_TYPE_PREFERRED) {
--
1.7.10.4
___
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: prefer VBT modes for SVDO-LVDS over EDID
On Sun, Jun 09, 2013 at 10:58:38PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: In commit 53d3b4d7778daf15900867336c85d3f8dd70600c Author: Egbert Eich e...@suse.de Date: Tue Jun 4 17:13:21 2013 +0200 drm/i915/sdvo: Use intel_sdvo-ddc instead of intel_sdvo-i2c for DDC Ebgert Eich fixed a long-standing bug where we simply used a non-working i2c controller to read the EDID for SDVO-LVDS panels. Unfortunately some machines seem to not be able to cope with the mode provided in the EDID (specifically they seem to not be able to cope with a 4x pixel mutliplier instead of a 2x one). Since it took forever to notice the breakage it's fairly safe to assume that at least for SDVO-LVDS panels the VBT contains fairly sane data. So just switch around the order and use VBT modes first. Cc: Egbert Eich e...@suse.de Cc: Chris Wilson ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk Bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=65524 Cc: sta...@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter daniel.vet...@ffwll.ch I can accept the argument that we need to prefer the VBT mode here to paper over the apparent regression, but to not pass on the full EDID modes seems dubious. Even if you do choose to skip the EDID if you have a VBT mode, you could write the function a little cleaner. ;-) -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre ___ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: prefer VBT modes for SVDO-LVDS over EDID
On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 11:16 PM, Chris Wilson ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk wrote: On Sun, Jun 09, 2013 at 10:58:38PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: In commit 53d3b4d7778daf15900867336c85d3f8dd70600c Author: Egbert Eich e...@suse.de Date: Tue Jun 4 17:13:21 2013 +0200 drm/i915/sdvo: Use intel_sdvo-ddc instead of intel_sdvo-i2c for DDC Ebgert Eich fixed a long-standing bug where we simply used a non-working i2c controller to read the EDID for SDVO-LVDS panels. Unfortunately some machines seem to not be able to cope with the mode provided in the EDID (specifically they seem to not be able to cope with a 4x pixel mutliplier instead of a 2x one). Since it took forever to notice the breakage it's fairly safe to assume that at least for SDVO-LVDS panels the VBT contains fairly sane data. So just switch around the order and use VBT modes first. Cc: Egbert Eich e...@suse.de Cc: Chris Wilson ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk Bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=65524 Cc: sta...@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter daniel.vet...@ffwll.ch I can accept the argument that we need to prefer the VBT mode here to paper over the apparent regression, but to not pass on the full EDID modes seems dubious. I'm not sure there's any value in additional modes. We can't really support frequency switching over sdvo (it'd very likely require a mutliplier change) and for everything else we only ever let the fixed mode through the fixup hook. Or do you want to just add the edid so that userspace can drool in the information provided in there (like the panel name or serial)? Even if you do choose to skip the EDID if you have a VBT mode, you could write the function a little cleaner. ;-) I don't see the potential to improve it tbh. Care to help the numb? -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch ___ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: prefer VBT modes for SVDO-LVDS over EDID
On Sun, Jun 09, 2013 at 11:28:12PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 11:16 PM, Chris Wilson ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk wrote: On Sun, Jun 09, 2013 at 10:58:38PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: In commit 53d3b4d7778daf15900867336c85d3f8dd70600c Author: Egbert Eich e...@suse.de Date: Tue Jun 4 17:13:21 2013 +0200 drm/i915/sdvo: Use intel_sdvo-ddc instead of intel_sdvo-i2c for DDC Ebgert Eich fixed a long-standing bug where we simply used a non-working i2c controller to read the EDID for SDVO-LVDS panels. Unfortunately some machines seem to not be able to cope with the mode provided in the EDID (specifically they seem to not be able to cope with a 4x pixel mutliplier instead of a 2x one). Since it took forever to notice the breakage it's fairly safe to assume that at least for SDVO-LVDS panels the VBT contains fairly sane data. So just switch around the order and use VBT modes first. Cc: Egbert Eich e...@suse.de Cc: Chris Wilson ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk Bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=65524 Cc: sta...@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter daniel.vet...@ffwll.ch I can accept the argument that we need to prefer the VBT mode here to paper over the apparent regression, but to not pass on the full EDID modes seems dubious. I'm not sure there's any value in additional modes. We can't really support frequency switching over sdvo (it'd very likely require a mutliplier change) and for everything else we only ever let the fixed mode through the fixup hook. I am trying not to generalise from the broken behaviour on this machine. On another machine, there may be some value in the extra modes. Select the sanest default we can, then let the user go nuts with the extra information. Or do you want to just add the edid so that userspace can drool in the information provided in there (like the panel name or serial)? And who doesn't enjoy reading the vendor strings in the panel edid? Even if you do choose to skip the EDID if you have a VBT mode, you could write the function a little cleaner. ;-) I don't see the potential to improve it tbh. Care to help the numb? The goto here is a little overkill and adds more code than if you wrote the function simply. -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre ___ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
