On Mon, 08 Aug 2011 13:24:12 -0700
Keith Packard wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Aug 2011 13:01:28 -0700, Jesse Barnes
> wrote:
> > On Mon, 08 Aug 2011 12:53:31 -0700
> > Keith Packard wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, 8 Aug 2011 11:49:54 -0700, Jesse Barnes > > virtuousgeek.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Yep, it's
On Mon, 8 Aug 2011 13:01:28 -0700, Jesse Barnes
wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Aug 2011 12:53:31 -0700
> Keith Packard wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 8 Aug 2011 11:49:54 -0700, Jesse Barnes > virtuousgeek.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Yep, it's safe and possible to do on pre-PCH as well. For panel
> > > fitting we do
On Mon, 08 Aug 2011 12:53:31 -0700
Keith Packard wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Aug 2011 11:49:54 -0700, Jesse Barnes
> wrote:
>
> > Yep, it's safe and possible to do on pre-PCH as well. For panel
> > fitting we do need to do an actual power cycle when going from
> > non-native back to native iirc, but
On Mon, 8 Aug 2011 11:49:54 -0700, Jesse Barnes
wrote:
> Yep, it's safe and possible to do on pre-PCH as well. For panel
> fitting we do need to do an actual power cycle when going from
> non-native back to native iirc, but we can still leave them unlocked so
> we don't have to worry about the
On Mon, 08 Aug 2011 11:42:56 -0700
Keith Packard wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Aug 2011 09:30:10 -0700, Jesse Barnes
> wrote:
>
> > Yep, looks fine. The only think we might want to sprinkle about are
> > checks for panel off so we can avoid visible corruption if we whack
> > timing or fb stuff while
On Mon, 8 Aug 2011 09:30:10 -0700, Jesse Barnes
wrote:
> Yep, looks fine. The only think we might want to sprinkle about are
> checks for panel off so we can avoid visible corruption if we whack
> timing or fb stuff while the panel is on.
So, I'd like to know if we could unlock the panel
On Mon, 8 Aug 2011 09:30:10 -0700, Jesse Barnes
wrote:
> Yep, looks fine. The only think we might want to sprinkle about are
> checks for panel off so we can avoid visible corruption if we whack
> timing or fb stuff while the panel is on.
Yeah, could do. Would be nice to somehow get the LVDS
On Sat, 6 Aug 2011 10:54:06 -0700
Keith Packard wrote:
> There's no reason to relock them; it just makes operations more
> complex. This fixes DPMS where the panel registers were locked making
> the disable not work.
>
> Signed-off-by: Keith Packard
Yep, looks fine. The only think we might
On Sat, 6 Aug 2011 10:54:06 -0700
Keith Packard kei...@keithp.com wrote:
There's no reason to relock them; it just makes operations more
complex. This fixes DPMS where the panel registers were locked making
the disable not work.
Signed-off-by: Keith Packard kei...@keithp.com
Yep, looks
On Mon, 8 Aug 2011 09:30:10 -0700, Jesse Barnes jbar...@virtuousgeek.org
wrote:
Yep, looks fine. The only think we might want to sprinkle about are
checks for panel off so we can avoid visible corruption if we whack
timing or fb stuff while the panel is on.
Yeah, could do. Would be nice to
On Mon, 8 Aug 2011 11:49:54 -0700, Jesse Barnes jbar...@virtuousgeek.org
wrote:
Yep, it's safe and possible to do on pre-PCH as well. For panel
fitting we do need to do an actual power cycle when going from
non-native back to native iirc, but we can still leave them unlocked so
we don't
On Mon, 08 Aug 2011 12:53:31 -0700
Keith Packard kei...@keithp.com wrote:
On Mon, 8 Aug 2011 11:49:54 -0700, Jesse Barnes jbar...@virtuousgeek.org
wrote:
Yep, it's safe and possible to do on pre-PCH as well. For panel
fitting we do need to do an actual power cycle when going from
On Mon, 8 Aug 2011 13:01:28 -0700, Jesse Barnes jbar...@virtuousgeek.org
wrote:
On Mon, 08 Aug 2011 12:53:31 -0700
Keith Packard kei...@keithp.com wrote:
On Mon, 8 Aug 2011 11:49:54 -0700, Jesse Barnes jbar...@virtuousgeek.org
wrote:
Yep, it's safe and possible to do on pre-PCH as
On Mon, 08 Aug 2011 13:24:12 -0700
Keith Packard kei...@keithp.com wrote:
On Mon, 8 Aug 2011 13:01:28 -0700, Jesse Barnes jbar...@virtuousgeek.org
wrote:
On Mon, 08 Aug 2011 12:53:31 -0700
Keith Packard kei...@keithp.com wrote:
On Mon, 8 Aug 2011 11:49:54 -0700, Jesse Barnes
14 matches
Mail list logo
