On 15 May 2014 18:58, Jani Nikula jani.nik...@intel.com wrote:
On Wed, 14 May 2014, Rodrigo Vivi rodrigo.v...@gmail.com wrote:
We do have to continue the investigation on the link training side, but
since 76711 is a critical I'm completely in favor of this workaround for
now.
I just tested
On 14 July 2014 10:46, Dave Airlie airl...@gmail.com wrote:
On 15 May 2014 18:58, Jani Nikula jani.nik...@intel.com wrote:
On Wed, 14 May 2014, Rodrigo Vivi rodrigo.v...@gmail.com wrote:
We do have to continue the investigation on the link training side, but
since 76711 is a critical I'm
On Wed, 14 May 2014, Rodrigo Vivi rodrigo.v...@gmail.com wrote:
We do have to continue the investigation on the link training side, but
since 76711 is a critical I'm completely in favor of this workaround for
now.
I just tested and it worked very well here, so:
Tested-by: Rodrigo Vivi
There are certain BDW high res eDP machines that regressed due to
commit 38aecea0ccbb909d635619cba22f1891e589b434
Author: Daniel Vetter daniel.vet...@ffwll.ch
Date: Mon Mar 3 11:18:10 2014 +0100
drm/i915: reverse dp link param selection, prefer fast over wide again
The commit lead to 2
We do have to continue the investigation on the link training side, but
since 76711 is a critical I'm completely in favor of this workaround for
now.
I just tested and it worked very well here, so:
Tested-by: Rodrigo Vivi rodrigo.v...@gmail.com
Reviewed-by: Rodrigo Vivi rodrigo.v...@gmail.com