On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 06:09:35PM -0700, Keith Packard wrote:
There's no reason to enforce a 300ms delay during eDP mode setting.
Signed-off-by: Keith Packard kei...@keithp.com
Can you elaborate a bit why this is no longer needed? Jesse seems to have
introduced this spefically for edp panels
On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 18:27:28 +0200, Daniel Vetter dan...@ffwll.ch wrote:
Can you elaborate a bit why this is no longer needed? Jesse seems to have
introduced this spefically for edp panels in d209848d61794968. If this
becomes rendundant due to your panel power sequencing fixes, maybe move it
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:50:10AM -0700, Keith Packard wrote:
On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 18:27:28 +0200, Daniel Vetter dan...@ffwll.ch wrote:
Can you elaborate a bit why this is no longer needed? Jesse seems to have
introduced this spefically for edp panels in d209848d61794968. If this
becomes
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 07:58:21PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:50:10AM -0700, Keith Packard wrote:
On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 18:27:28 +0200, Daniel Vetter dan...@ffwll.ch wrote:
Can you elaborate a bit why this is no longer needed? Jesse seems to have
introduced
On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 20:09:59 +0200, Daniel Vetter dan...@ffwll.ch wrote:
On further strolling through bspec to review later patches I've noticed
that PCH_PP_ON_DELAYS and PCH_PP_OFF_DELAYS seem to have values for
power on-backlight on and backlight off-panel off delays. Maybe we
should use
There's no reason to enforce a 300ms delay during eDP mode setting.
Signed-off-by: Keith Packard kei...@keithp.com
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c |7 ---
1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
