| Message ID | 1365769483-16706-1-git-send-email-ben@bnc.nl (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 02:24:43PM +0200, Ben Mesman wrote: > Last year, a patch was made for the "HP t5740e Thin Client" (see > http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dri-devel/2012-May/023245.html). > This device reports an lvds panel, but does not really have one. > > The predecessor of this device is the "hp t5740", which also does not have > an lvds panel. This patch will add the same quirk for this device. > > Signed-off-by: Ben Mesman <ben@bnc.nl> > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lvds.c | 8 ++++++++ > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lvds.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lvds.c > index ca2d903..8a56d9b 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lvds.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lvds.c > @@ -816,6 +816,14 @@ static const struct dmi_system_id intel_no_lvds[] = { > }, > { > .callback = intel_no_lvds_dmi_callback, > + .ident = "Hewlett-Packard hp t5740", > + .matches = { > + DMI_MATCH(DMI_BOARD_VENDOR, "Hewlett-Packard"), > + DMI_MATCH(DMI_PRODUCT_NAME, "hp t5740"), > + }, > + }, One thing to note is that the dmi matching routine uses strstr (as opposed to dmi_match() which uses strcmp!) so this rule should encompass the following rule for its offspring. -Chris
Op vrijdag 12 april 2013 14:47 schreef Chris Wilson: > On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 02:24:43PM +0200, Ben Mesman wrote: > > Last year, a patch was made for the "HP t5740e Thin Client" (see > > http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dri-devel/2012-May/023245.html). > > This device reports an lvds panel, but does not really have one. > > > > The predecessor of this device is the "hp t5740", which also does not > > have an lvds panel. This patch will add the same quirk for this device. > > > > Signed-off-by: Ben Mesman <ben@bnc.nl> > > --- > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lvds.c | 8 ++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lvds.c > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lvds.c > > index ca2d903..8a56d9b 100644 > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lvds.c > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lvds.c > > @@ -816,6 +816,14 @@ static const struct dmi_system_id intel_no_lvds[] = > { > > }, > > { > > .callback = intel_no_lvds_dmi_callback, > > + .ident = "Hewlett-Packard hp t5740", > > + .matches = { > > + DMI_MATCH(DMI_BOARD_VENDOR, "Hewlett- > Packard"), > > + DMI_MATCH(DMI_PRODUCT_NAME, "hp t5740"), > > + }, > > + }, > > One thing to note is that the dmi matching routine uses strstr (as opposed to > dmi_match() which uses strcmp!) so this rule should encompass the > following rule for its offspring. I am sorry, I don't know what you are asking here. Is there something wrong with this patch?
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lvds.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lvds.c index ca2d903..8a56d9b 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lvds.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lvds.c @@ -816,6 +816,14 @@ static const struct dmi_system_id intel_no_lvds[] = { }, { .callback = intel_no_lvds_dmi_callback, + .ident = "Hewlett-Packard hp t5740", + .matches = { + DMI_MATCH(DMI_BOARD_VENDOR, "Hewlett-Packard"), + DMI_MATCH(DMI_PRODUCT_NAME, "hp t5740"), + }, + }, + { + .callback = intel_no_lvds_dmi_callback, .ident = "Hewlett-Packard HP t5740e Thin Client", .matches = { DMI_MATCH(DMI_BOARD_VENDOR, "Hewlett-Packard"),
Last year, a patch was made for the "HP t5740e Thin Client" (see http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dri-devel/2012-May/023245.html). This device reports an lvds panel, but does not really have one. The predecessor of this device is the "hp t5740", which also does not have an lvds panel. This patch will add the same quirk for this device. Signed-off-by: Ben Mesman <ben@bnc.nl> --- drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lvds.c | 8 ++++++++ 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)