diff mbox

INTEL DRM DRIVERS : No LVDS hardware on Intel D410PT and D425KT

Message ID 526D3BB6.6020902@flitspace.org.uk (mailing list archive)
State New, archived
Headers show

Commit Message

Rob Pearce Oct. 27, 2013, 4:13 p.m. UTC 
From: Rob Pearce <rob@flitspace.org.uk>

The Intel D410PT(LW) and D425KT Mini-ITX desktop boards both show up as
having LVDS but the hardware is not populated. This patch adds them to
the list of such systems. Patch is against 3.11.4

Signed-off-by: Rob Pearce <rob@flitspace.org.uk>
---
Patch revised to match the D425KT exactly as the D425KTW does have LVDS. 
According to Intel's documentation, the D410PTL and D410PLTW don't.

Comments

Greg Kroah-Hartman Oct. 27, 2013, 5:33 p.m. UTC | #1 
On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 04:13:42PM +0000, Rob Pearce wrote:
> From: Rob Pearce <rob@flitspace.org.uk>
> 
> The Intel D410PT(LW) and D425KT Mini-ITX desktop boards both show up as
> having LVDS but the hardware is not populated. This patch adds them to
> the list of such systems. Patch is against 3.11.4
> 
> Signed-off-by: Rob Pearce <rob@flitspace.org.uk>
> ---
> Patch revised to match the D425KT exactly as the D425KTW does have LVDS. 
> According to Intel's documentation, the D410PTL and D410PLTW don't.

Any reason you don't want this in the stable tree as well?

thanks,

greg k-h
Rob Pearce Oct. 27, 2013, 6:29 p.m. UTC | #2 
On 27/10/13 17:33, Greg KH wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 04:13:42PM +0000, Rob Pearce wrote:
>> From: Rob Pearce <rob@flitspace.org.uk>
>>
>> The Intel D410PT(LW) and D425KT Mini-ITX desktop boards both show up as
>> having LVDS but the hardware is not populated. This patch adds them to
>> the list of such systems. Patch is against 3.11.4
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Rob Pearce <rob@flitspace.org.uk>
>> ---
>> Patch revised to match the D425KT exactly as the D425KTW does have LVDS. 
>> According to Intel's documentation, the D410PTL and D410PLTW don't.
> 
> Any reason you don't want this in the stable tree as well?
> 

No, should be in stable. Sorry, I'm obviously getting some etiquette
wrong (this is the first patch I've submitted).

Cheers,
Rob
Guenter Roeck Oct. 27, 2013, 6:35 p.m. UTC | #3 
On 10/27/2013 10:33 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 04:13:42PM +0000, Rob Pearce wrote:
>> From: Rob Pearce <rob@flitspace.org.uk>
>>
>> The Intel D410PT(LW) and D425KT Mini-ITX desktop boards both show up as
>> having LVDS but the hardware is not populated. This patch adds them to
>> the list of such systems. Patch is against 3.11.4
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Rob Pearce <rob@flitspace.org.uk>
>> ---
>> Patch revised to match the D425KT exactly as the D425KTW does have LVDS.
>> According to Intel's documentation, the D410PTL and D410PLTW don't.
>
> Any reason you don't want this in the stable tree as well?
>

Hi Greg,

pardon my ignorance, but I thought this was supposed to be the maintainer's call to make ?
Did I get this wrong ?

Thanks,
Guenter
diff mbox

Patch

diff -uprN -X linux-3.11.4/Documentation/dontdiff linux-3.11.4/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lvds.c linux-3.11.4-ovs/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lvds.c
--- linux-3.11.4/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lvds.c       2013-10-22 19:00:30.000000000 +0100
+++ linux-3.11.4-ovs/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lvds.c   2013-10-27 15:51:25.000000000 +0000
@@ -696,6 +696,22 @@ 
 	},
 	{
 		.callback = intel_no_lvds_dmi_callback,
+		.ident = "Intel D410PT",
+		.matches = {
+			DMI_MATCH(DMI_BOARD_VENDOR, "Intel"),
+			DMI_MATCH(DMI_BOARD_NAME, "D410PT"),
+		},
+	},
+	{
+		.callback = intel_no_lvds_dmi_callback,
+		.ident = "Intel D425KT",
+		.matches = {
+			DMI_MATCH(DMI_BOARD_VENDOR, "Intel"),
+			DMI_EXACT_MATCH(DMI_BOARD_NAME, "D425KT"),
+		},
+	},
+	{
+		.callback = intel_no_lvds_dmi_callback,
 		.ident = "Intel D510MO",
 		.matches = {
 			DMI_MATCH(DMI_SYS_VENDOR, "Intel"),