1. 24 3月, 2013 1 次提交
  2. 15 2月, 2013 1 次提交
  3. 05 12月, 2012 1 次提交
  4. 22 11月, 2012 1 次提交
    • D
      drm/i915: resurrect panel lid handling · a726915c
      Daniel Vetter 提交于
      But disabled by default. This essentially reverts
      
      commit bcd5023c
      Author: Dave Airlie <airlied@redhat.com>
      Date:   Mon Mar 14 14:17:55 2011 +1000
      
          drm/i915: disable opregion lid detection for now
      
      but leaves the autodetect mode disabled. There's also the explicit lid
      status option added in
      
      commit fca87409
      Author: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
      Date:   Thu Feb 17 13:44:48 2011 +0000
      
          drm/i915: Add a module parameter to ignore lid status
      
      Which overloaded the meaning for the panel_ignore_lid parameter even
      more. To fix up this mess, give the non-negative numbers 0,1 the
      original meaning back and use negative numbers to force a given state.
      So now we have
      
      1  - disable autodetect, return unknown
      0  - enable autodetect
      -1 - force to disconnected/lid closed
      -2 - force to connected/lid open
      
      v2: My C programmer license has been revoked ...
      
      v3: Beautify the code a bit, as suggested by Chris Wilson.
      
      Bugzilla: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=27622Tested-by: NAndreas Sturmlechner <andreas.sturmlechner@gmail.com>
      Reviewed-by: NChris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
      Signed-off-by: NDaniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
      a726915c
  5. 12 11月, 2012 1 次提交
  6. 26 10月, 2012 1 次提交
  7. 23 10月, 2012 3 次提交
  8. 04 9月, 2012 1 次提交
  9. 12 8月, 2012 1 次提交
  10. 06 8月, 2012 1 次提交
  11. 20 7月, 2012 1 次提交
    • P
      drm/i915: don't forget the PCH backlight registers · a4f32fc3
      Paulo Zanoni 提交于
      When we enable/disable the CPU backlight registers we can't forget to
      enable/disable the PCH backlight registers. Since we're using the CPU
      registers we should also unset the override bit.
      
      Fixes a regression on the following commit:
        drm/i915: properly enable the blc controller on the right pipe
      
      The commit just deleted the code that sets the PCH registers, so it
      was relying on the values set by the BIOS. I told my BIOS to boot on
      the DVI monitor instead of the LVDS panel, so I noticed the bug.
      Signed-off-by: NPaulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni@intel.com>
      Signed-off-by: NDaniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
      a4f32fc3
  12. 13 6月, 2012 1 次提交
    • D
      drm/i915: properly enable the blc controller on the right pipe · 24ded204
      Daniel Vetter 提交于
      On gen4+ we have a bitfield to specify from which pipe the backlight
      controller should take it's clock. For PCH split platforms we've
      already set these up, but only at initialization time. And without
      taking into account the 3rd pipe added with ivb.
      
      For gen4, we've completely ignored these. Although we do restrict lvds
      to the 2nd pipe, so this is only a problem on machines where we boot
      up with the lvds on the first pipe.
      
      So restructure the code to enable the backlight on the right pipe at
      modeset time.
      
      v2: For odd reasons panel_enable_backlight gets called twice in a
      modeset, so we can't WARN_ON in there if the backlight controller is
      switched on already.
      
      v3: backlight enable can also be called through dpms on, so the check
      in there is legit. Update the comment to reflect that.
      Tested-By: NKamal Mostafa <kamal@canonical.com>
      Bugzilla: https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/954661
      Cc: Carsten Emde <C.Emde@osadl.org>
      Reviewed-by: NEugeni Dodonov <eugeni.dodonov@intel.com>
      Signed-Off-by: NDaniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
      24ded204
  13. 05 6月, 2012 1 次提交
  14. 22 5月, 2012 1 次提交
  15. 16 4月, 2012 1 次提交
  16. 19 3月, 2012 3 次提交
  17. 11 2月, 2012 1 次提交
    • D
      drm/i915: fixup interlaced vertical timings confusion, part 1 · ca9bfa7e
      Daniel Vetter 提交于
      We have a pretty decent confusion about vertical timings of interlaced
      modes. Peter Ross has written a patch that makes interlace modes work
      on a lot more platforms/output combinations by doubling the vertical
      timings.
      
      The issue with that patch is that core drm _does_ support specifying
      whether we want these vertical timings in fields or frames, we just
      haven't managed to consistently use this facility. The relavant
      function is drm_mode_set_crtcinfo, which fills in the crtc timing
      information.
      
      The first thing to note is that the drm core keeps interlaced modes in
      frames, but displays modelines in fields. So when the crtc modeset
      helper copies over the mode into adjusted_mode it will already contain
      vertical timings in half-frames. The result is that the fixup code in
      intel_crtc_mode_fixup doesn't actually do anything (in most cases at
      least).
      
      Now gen3+ natively supports interlaced modes and wants the vertical
      timings in frames. Which is what sdvo already fixes up, at least under
      some conditions.
      
      There are a few other place that demand vertical timings in fields
      but never actually deal with interlaced modes, so use frame timings
      for consistency, too. These are:
      - lvds panel,
      - dvo encoders - dvo is the only way gen2 could support interlaced
        mode, but currently we don't support any encoders that do.
      - tv out - despite that the tv dac sends out an interlaced signal it
        expects a progressive mode pipe configuration.
      All these encoders enforce progressive modes by resetting
      interlace_allowed.
      
      Hence we always want crtc vertical timings in frames. Enforce this in
      our crtc mode_fixup function and rip out any redudant timing
      computations from the encoders' mode_fixup function.
      
      v2-4: Adjust the vertical timings a bit.
      
      v5: Split out the 'subtract-one for interlaced' fixes.
      
      v6: Clarify issues around tv-out and gen2.
      Reviewed-by: NEugeni Dodonov <eugeni.dodonov@intel.com>
      Reviewed-by: NPaulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni@intel.com>
      Tested-by: NPaulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni@intel.com>
      Tested-by: NChristopher Egert <cme3000@gmail.com>
      Tested-by: NAlfonso Fiore <alfonso.fiore@gmail.com>
      Signed-Off-by: NDaniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
      ca9bfa7e
  18. 17 1月, 2012 1 次提交
  19. 24 11月, 2011 1 次提交
    • K
      drm/i915: Treat pre-gen4 backlight duty cycle value consistently · ca88479c
      Keith Packard 提交于
      For i945 and earlier chips, the backlight frequency value had the low
      bit (of 16) fixed to zero. The Pineview code path handled this by just
      exposing the backlight range as 15 bits while other chips had the
      backlight range limited to 0 .. 0xfffe.
      
      This patch makes everyone take the pineview code path, providing 15
      bits of backlight duty cycle range which seems more than sufficient to
      me.
      
      Daniel Mack reported that writing 1 to bit 0 of the duty cycle
      register was causing problems on his Samsung X20 notebook, even when
      the duty cycle value was less than the maximum backlight value. (He
      tried a value of 29749 with max_brightness of 29750). This patch never
      writes a '1' to that bit.
      Signed-off-by: NKeith Packard <keithp@keithp.com>
      Reviewed-by: NTakashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de>
      Reported-and-tested-by: NDaniel Mack <zonque@gmail.com>
      Cc: stable@kernel.org
      ca88479c
  20. 18 11月, 2011 1 次提交
  21. 21 10月, 2011 1 次提交
    • T
      drm/i915/panel: Always record the backlight level again (but cleverly) · f52c619a
      Takashi Iwai 提交于
      The commit 47356eb6 introduced a
      mechanism to record the backlight level only at disabling time, but it
      also introduced a regression.  Since intel_lvds_enable() may be called
      without disabling (e.g. intel_lvds_commit() calls it unconditionally),
      the backlight gets back to the last recorded value.  For example, this
      happens when you dim the backlight, close the lid and open the lid,
      then the backlight suddenly goes to the brightest.
      
      This patch fixes the bug by recording the backlight level always
      when changed via intel_panel_set_backlight().  And,
      intel_panel_{enable|disable}_backlight() call the internal function not
      to update the recorded level wrongly.
      
      Cc: <stable@kernel.org>
      Signed-off-by: NTakashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de>
      Reviewed-by: NKeith Packard <keithp@keithp.com>
      Signed-off-by: NKeith Packard <keithp@keithp.com>
      f52c619a
  22. 20 9月, 2011 1 次提交
  23. 16 8月, 2011 1 次提交
  24. 26 7月, 2011 1 次提交
    • A
      drm/i915/pch: Fix integer math bugs in panel fitting · 302983e9
      Adam Jackson 提交于
      Consider a 1600x900 panel, upscaling a 1360x768 mode, full-aspect.  The
      old math would give you:
      
          scaled_width  = 1600 * 768;         /* 1228800 */
          scaled_height = 1360 * 900;         /* 1224000 */
          if (scaled_width > scaled_height) { /* pillarbox, and true */
              width  = 1224000 / 768;         /* int(1593.75) = 1593 */
              x      = (1600 - 1593 + 1) / 2; /* 4 */
              y      = 0;
              height = 768;
          } /* ... */
      
      This is broken.  The total width of scanout would then be 1593 + 4 + 4,
      or 1601, which is wider than the panel itself.  The hardware very
      dutifully implements this, and you end up with a black 45° diagonal from
      the top-left corner to the bottom edge of the screen.  It's a cool
      effect and all, but not what you wanted.  Similar things happen for the
      letterbox case.
      
      The problem is that you have an integer number of pixels, which means
      it's usually impossible to upscale equally on both axes.  1360/768 is
      1.7708, 1600/900 is 1.7777.  Since we're constrained on the one axis,
      the other one wants to come out as an even number of pixels (the panel
      is almost certainly even on both axes, and the x/y offsets will be
      applied on both sides).  In the math above, if 'width' comes out even,
      rounding down is correct; if it's odd, you'd rather round up.  So just
      increment width/height in those cases.
      
      Tested on a Lenovo T500 (Ironlake).
      Signed-off-by: NAdam Jackson <ajax@redhat.com>
      Tested-By: NDaniel Manrique <daniel.manrique@canonical.com>
      Bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38851Reviewed-by: NChris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
      Cc: stable@kernel.org
      Signed-off-by: NKeith Packard <keithp@keithp.com>
      302983e9
  25. 14 3月, 2011 1 次提交
  26. 11 3月, 2011 1 次提交
  27. 22 2月, 2011 2 次提交
    • C
      drm/i915: Add a module parameter to ignore lid status · fca87409
      Chris Wilson 提交于
      Seems like we are forever to be cursed with buggy firmware, so allow the
      user to explicitly set the panel connection status.
      
      Of secondary utility for cases where I run laptops with the lid closed,
      but still want to configure the LVDS.
      Signed-off-by: NChris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
      fca87409
    • I
      drm/i915: Do not handle backlight combination mode specially · 951f3512
      Indan Zupancic 提交于
      The current code does not follow Intel documentation: It misses some things
      and does other, undocumented things. This causes wrong backlight values in
      certain conditions. Instead of adding tricky code handling badly documented
      and rare corner cases, don't handle combination mode specially at all. This
      way PCI_LBPC is never touched and weird things shouldn't happen.
      
      If combination mode is enabled, then the only downside is that changing the
      brightness has a greater granularity (the LBPC value), but LBPC is at most
      254 and the maximum is in the thousands, so this is no real functional loss.
      
      A potential problem with not handling combined mode is that a brightness of
      max * PCI_LBPC is not bright enough. However, this is very unlikely because
      from the documentation LBPC seems to act as a scaling factor and doesn't look
      like it's supposed to be changed after boot. The value at boot should always
      result in a bright enough screen.
      
      IMPORTANT: However, although usually the above is true, it may not be when
      people ran an older (2.6.37) kernel which messed up the LBPC register, and
      they are unlucky enough to have a BIOS that saves and restores the LBPC value.
      Then a good kernel may seem to not work: Max brightness isn't bright enough.
      If this happens people should boot back into the old kernel, set brightness
      to the maximum, and then reboot. After that everything should be fine.
      
      For more information see the below links. This fixes bugs:
      
        http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=23472
        http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=25072Signed-off-by: NIndan Zupancic <indan@nul.nu>
      Tested-by: NAlex Riesen <raa.lkml@gmail.com>
      Signed-off-by: NLinus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
      951f3512
  28. 16 2月, 2011 1 次提交
  29. 13 1月, 2011 1 次提交
  30. 12 1月, 2011 1 次提交
  31. 23 11月, 2010 1 次提交
  32. 21 9月, 2010 1 次提交
  33. 08 9月, 2010 1 次提交
  34. 10 8月, 2010 1 次提交