On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 05:24:10PM -0700, Souza, Jose wrote:
> On Fri, 2019-06-21 at 07:08 -0700, Matt Roper wrote:
> > Our past DDI-based Intel platforms have had a fixed DDI<->PHY
> > mapping.
> > Because of this, both the bspec documentation and our i915 code has
> > used
> > the term "port"
On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 12:24:10AM +, Souza, Jose wrote:
> On Fri, 2019-06-21 at 07:08 -0700, Matt Roper wrote:
> > @@ -2912,18 +2920,19 @@ static void intel_ddi_clk_disable(struct
> > intel_encoder *encoder)
> > {
> > struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = to_i915(encoder->base.dev);
> >
On Fri, 2019-06-21 at 07:08 -0700, Matt Roper wrote:
> Our past DDI-based Intel platforms have had a fixed DDI<->PHY
> mapping.
> Because of this, both the bspec documentation and our i915 code has
> used
> the term "port" when talking about either DDI's or PHY's; it was
> always
> easy to tell
Our past DDI-based Intel platforms have had a fixed DDI<->PHY mapping.
Because of this, both the bspec documentation and our i915 code has used
the term "port" when talking about either DDI's or PHY's; it was always
easy to tell what terms like "Port A" were referring to from the
context.
Our past DDI-based Intel platforms have had a fixed DDI<->PHY mapping.
Because of this, both the bspec documentation and our i915 code has used
the term "port" when talking about either DDI's or PHY's; it was always
easy to tell what terms like "Port A" were referring to from the
context.
