On Wed, 14 Feb 2018, "Mustaffa, Mustamin B" <mustamin.b.musta...@intel.com> wrote: > Hi Jani, > > I able to figure out using intel_dp structure instead of dev_priv. > > Should I continue using dev_priv or intel_dp? > > - int backlight_controller = dev_priv->vbt.backlight.controller; > + int backlight_controller = > intel_dp->attached_connector->panel.backlight.controller;
Point was, connector->panel.backlight.controller gets initialized in intel_panel_setup_backlight() which is called much later than intel_dp_pps_init() in intel_edp_init_connector(). BR, Jani. > > Best regard > > Mustamin > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jani Nikula [mailto:jani.nik...@linux.intel.com] > Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2018 11:53 PM > To: Mustaffa, Mustamin B <mustamin.b.musta...@intel.com>; > intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org > Subject: RE: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915/bxt: Enable VBT based BL control > for DP (v2) > > On Fri, 09 Feb 2018, "Mustaffa, Mustamin B" <mustamin.b.musta...@intel.com> > wrote: >> May I know why the need to use connector as connector wasn't >> initialized in parent function ' intel_pps_get_registers'? > > Oh, right, I overlooked that. > >> While ' dev_priv' already initialized which also already initialized >> to the VBT value. So it make sense to me to use 'dev_priv' structure >> to read the VBT value instead of connector. > > Okay, I think the right thing to do in the long run is to refactor the code > to initialize the value in the connector earlier. We'll want to use the VBT > only for initialization once. But for now, I think this is fine. Please > rebase the patch against current upstream so we get fresh CI results, and > resend. > > Thanks, > Jani. > > > -- > Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center -- Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
