From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Carsten Emde <C.Emde@osadl.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] drm/i915: clear up backlight inversion
 confusion on gen4
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 18:55:37 +0200
Message-ID: <4F958989.9060503@osadl.org>
References: <4F9542EF.3010208@osadl.org>
	<20120423123257.GE4935@phenom.ffwll.local>
	<20120423123619.GF4935@phenom.ffwll.local>
	<4F9555D6.2020708@osadl.org>
	<20120423133934.GG4935@phenom.ffwll.local>
	<4F956077.3040103@osadl.org>
	<20120423142205.GI4935@phenom.ffwll.local>
	<4F95700D.9080609@osadl.org>
	<20120423152250.GJ4935@phenom.ffwll.local>
	<4F957773.6000003@osadl.org>
	<20120423155605.GK4935@phenom.ffwll.local>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org>
Received: from toro.web-alm.net (toro.web-alm.net [62.245.132.31])
	by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3C109E96C
	for <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>;
	Mon, 23 Apr 2012 10:02:11 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20120423155605.GK4935@phenom.ffwll.local>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/options/intel-gfx>,
	<mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/intel-gfx>
List-Post: <mailto:intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>
List-Help: <mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx>,
	<mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org
Errors-To: intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org
To: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
Cc: Intel Graphics Development <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>
List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org

On 04/23/2012 05:56 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 05:38:27PM +0200, Carsten Emde wrote:
>> On 04/23/2012 05:22 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>>> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 05:06:53PM +0200, Carsten Emde wrote:
>>>> On 04/23/2012 04:22 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 04:00:23PM +0200, Carsten Emde wrote:
>>>>> [..]
>>>>> The idea was to boot with kms and see whether any of these values would
>>>>> restore the backlight. Writing to CTL1 should change anything in CTL2.
>>>> Ah, sorry, ok. Removed the quirk again and tested the various settings:
>>>>
>>>> ->   Initial screen: dark
>>>>
>>>> # intel_reg_write 0x61250 0x80000000
>>>> Value before: 0xE0000000
>>>> Value after: 0x80000000
>>>> ->   Still dark
>>>>
>>>> # intel_reg_write 0x61250 0xa0000000
>>>> Value before: 0x80000000
>>>> Value after: 0xA0000000
>>>> ->   Still dark
>>>>
>>>> # intel_reg_write 0x61250 0x90000000
>>>> Value before: 0xA0000000
>>>> Value after: 0x90000000
>>>> ->   BACKLIGHT ON!
>>>>
>>>> # intel_reg_write 0x61250 0xb0000000
>>>> Value before: 0x90000000
>>>> Value after: 0xB0000000
>>>> ->   Still ON.
>>>
>>> Neat. Let's test two more:
>>>
>>> # intel_reg_write 0x61250 0xd0000000
>>> # intel_reg_write 0x61250 0xc0000000
>> Here we go.
>>
>> ->   Initial screen: dark
>>
>> # intel_reg_write 0x61250 0xd0000000
>> Value before: 0xE0000000
>> Value after: 0xD0000000
>> ->   BACKLIGHT ON!
>>
>> # intel_reg_write 0x61250 0xc0000000
>> Value before: 0xD0000000
>> Value after: 0xC0000000
>> ->   Dark again.
>
> Ok, so the polarity bit does work as advertised. But I still don't
> understand how your machine works, so assuming your machine has backlight
> control keys,
Yes it has, but they don't have any effect.

Unfortunately, I have to leave now and will be away from the lab for two 
days. Will continue to work on the problem when I'll be back. For the 
time being, I let the two conditions, your new patch and the old quirk, 
coexist in the code.

Thanks,
	-Carsten.