Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v3] drm/i915: Honor SSC quirk table over the default, unless set by user

2011-11-16 Thread Michel Alexandre Salim
Hi Keith, That patch is still not in 3.2-rc2, drm-intel-fixes or drm-intel-next. I've been using it successfully on i915 (both SSC-blacklisted and not) and non-i915 machines; feel free to set the Tested-by and Reviewed-by tags. Thanks, -- Michel On 11/09/2011 07:07 PM, Keith Packard wrote:

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v3] drm/i915: Honor SSC quirk table over the default, unless set by user

2011-11-10 Thread Michel Alexandre Salim
On Wed, 2011-11-09 at 10:07 -0800, Keith Packard wrote: On Wed, 09 Nov 2011 17:30:29 +0100, Michel Alexandre Salim sali...@fedoraproject.org wrote: Additional note: while I've not touched the line since it does not affect me, it seems that i915_panel_use_ssc *cannot* be less than 0 since

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH v3] drm/i915: Honor SSC quirk table over the default, unless set by user

2011-11-09 Thread Michel Alexandre Salim
From a90bf9ac2a40869242a79c88958c99dacc3da2a9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Michel Alexandre Salim sali...@fedoraproject.org Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 14:18:45 +0100 Subject: [PATCH v3] drm/i915: Honor SSC quirk table over the default, unless set by user Commit

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v3] drm/i915: Honor SSC quirk table over the default, unless set by user

2011-11-09 Thread Michel Alexandre Salim
Additional note: while I've not touched the line since it does not affect me, it seems that i915_panel_use_ssc *cannot* be less than 0 since that variable is declared as unsigned. So the last line (the value in dev_priv) will never be used to determine whether SSC is used anyway. Keith probably

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v3] drm/i915: Honor SSC quirk table over the default, unless set by user

2011-11-09 Thread Keith Packard
On Wed, 09 Nov 2011 17:30:29 +0100, Michel Alexandre Salim sali...@fedoraproject.org wrote: Additional note: while I've not touched the line since it does not affect me, it seems that i915_panel_use_ssc *cannot* be less than 0 since that variable is declared as unsigned. Oops. That's the bug