Hi,
On 13-12-18 14:08, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 01:40:27PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
Hi,
On 13-12-18 13:14, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
<snip>
+static int intel_cht_wc_exec_mipi_pmic_seq_element(struct regmap *regmap,
+ const u8 *data)
+{
+ u32 value, mask, reg_address, address;
+ u16 i2c_client_address;
+
+ /* byte 0 aka PMIC Flag is reserved */
+ i2c_client_address = get_unaligned_le16(data + 1);
+ reg_address = get_unaligned_le32(data + 3);
+ value = get_unaligned_le32(data + 7);
+ mask = get_unaligned_le32(data + 11);
Upon further reflection maybe it would better to do this decoding in
the i915 code and just pass each parameter to this hook separately?
That way we wouldn't be spreading the vbt details all over the place.
Interesting point, if the VBT spec says that this encoding is PMIC
independent, then yes we should probably fo the decoding in the VBT
code and change the intel_soc_pmic_exec_mipi_pmic_seq_element
prototype to:
int intel_soc_pmic_exec_mipi_pmic_seq_element(u16 i2c_address, u32 reg_address,
u32 value, u32 mask);
If you agree please let me know and I will do a v4 of the patchset.
Yeah, I think that's probably better. The spec has just the one
interpretation for the sequence.
Ok, v4. coming up.
Oh, and we should probably change the DRM_DEBUG_KMS() for the
PMIC_OPREGION=n case to a DRM_ERROR() which tells people to
enable PMIC_OPREGION=y.
Will do.
Regards,
Hans
p.s.
Have you also seen these 2 DSI related series (I've not see any feedback
on these 2 series yet) ? :
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10707629/ (patch 1/4)
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10707647/ (patch 1/4)
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
