On Mon, 2015-10-19 at 10:15 +0530, Thulasimani, Sivakumar wrote:
>
> On 10/5/2015 12:31 PM, Ander Conselvan de Oliveira wrote:
> > It just makes the code more confusing, so just reference intel_dp_>DP
> > directly. The old behavior of not updating the value in intel_dp if link
> > training fail
On Mon, 2015-10-19 at 10:15 +0530, Thulasimani, Sivakumar wrote:
>
> On 10/5/2015 12:31 PM, Ander Conselvan de Oliveira wrote:
> > It just makes the code more confusing, so just reference intel_dp_>DP
> > directly. The old behavior of not updating the value in intel_dp if link
> > training fail
On 10/19/2015 2:26 PM, Ander Conselvan De Oliveira wrote:
On Mon, 2015-10-19 at 10:15 +0530, Thulasimani, Sivakumar wrote:
On 10/5/2015 12:31 PM, Ander Conselvan de Oliveira wrote:
It just makes the code more confusing, so just reference intel_dp_>DP
directly. The old behavior of not
On 10/5/2015 12:31 PM, Ander Conselvan de Oliveira wrote:
It just makes the code more confusing, so just reference intel_dp_>DP
directly. The old behavior of not updating the value in intel_dp if link
training fail is preserved by saving the previous value of DP in the
stack and restoring the
It just makes the code more confusing, so just reference intel_dp_>DP
directly. The old behavior of not updating the value in intel_dp if link
training fail is preserved by saving the previous value of DP in the
stack and restoring the old value in case of failure.
Signed-off-by: Ander Conselvan
