[Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: respect VBT PSR link standby configuration for HSW/BDW.

[Chris Wilson]

On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 08:47:54AM -0700, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> We have in the history some changes on this behaviour, but
> there are many platforms out there and we don't know all panels.
> 
> VBT might not be reliable but it knows the platform better than
> us usually. Or at least it should.
> So, first of all let's respect the VBT. If something bad happens
> again with one platform or another it is better to create a
> quirk than to bypass the VBT.
> 
> Cc: Mihai Dontu <mihai.dontu at gmail.com>
> Cc: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula at intel.com>
> Cc: Dhinakaran Pandiyan <dhinakaran.pandiyan at intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi at intel.com>
> ---
>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c | 5 +----
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c
> index c3abae4..e65e2c3 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c
> @@ -788,14 +788,11 @@ void intel_psr_init(struct drm_device *dev)
>  	}
>  
>  	/* Set link_standby x link_off defaults */
> -	if (IS_HASWELL(dev) || IS_BROADWELL(dev))
> -		/* HSW and BDW require workarounds that we don't implement. */
> -		dev_priv->psr.link_standby = false;

This patch has nothing to do with respecting the VBT or not, it's about
whether the comment that we still require w/a is valid or not.

That's not even mentioned in the changelog.
-Chris

-- 
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre