[Intel-gfx] [PATCH resend 14/15] drm/i915/dsi: Call MIPI_SEQ_TEAR_ON and DISPLAY_ON for cmd-mode (untested)

[Hans de Goede]

Hi,

On 24-02-17 18:02, Bob Paauwe wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Feb 2017 15:08:44 +0100
> Hans de Goede <hdegoede at redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> According to the spec we should call MIPI_SEQ_TEAR_ON and DISPLAY_ON
>> on enable for cmd-mode, just like we already call their counterparts
>> on disable. Note: untested, my panel is a vid-mode panel.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede at redhat.com>
>> ---
>>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dsi.c | 2 ++
>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dsi.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dsi.c
>> index 90263d6..a001e43 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dsi.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dsi.c
>> @@ -680,6 +680,8 @@ static void intel_dsi_pre_enable(struct intel_encoder *encoder,
>>  	if (is_cmd_mode(intel_dsi)) {
>>  		for_each_dsi_port(port, intel_dsi->ports)
>>  			I915_WRITE(MIPI_MAX_RETURN_PKT_SIZE(port), 8 * 4);
>> +		intel_dsi_exec_vbt_sequence(intel_dsi, MIPI_SEQ_TEAR_ON);
>
> As with the TEAR_OFF, should this only be done for command mode?  Or is
> it just a no-op for video mode and doesn't matter?

In this case we are actually in a "if (is_cmd_mode(intel_dsi)) {" code
block (the if is visible in the diff context).

Which I guess also shows that we really need to add the guard to the
other path, so as to be consistent.

Note as mentioned in the commit msg:

untested, my panel is a vid-mode panel.

>
>> +		intel_dsi_exec_vbt_sequence(intel_dsi, MIPI_SEQ_DISPLAY_ON);
>>  	} else {
>>  		msleep(20); /* XXX */
>>  		for_each_dsi_port(port, intel_dsi->ports)
>
>
>

Regards,

Hans