On 10/05/2024 10:13, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Thu, 09 May 2024, Steven Price wrote:
>> On 29/04/2024 17:43, Jani Nikula wrote:
>>> The driver date serves no useful purpose, because it's hardly ever
>>> updated. The information is misleading at best.
>>>
>>> As described in
On Thu, 09 May 2024, Steven Price wrote:
> On 29/04/2024 17:43, Jani Nikula wrote:
>> The driver date serves no useful purpose, because it's hardly ever
>> updated. The information is misleading at best.
>>
>> As described in Documentation/gpu/drm-internals.rst:
>>
>> The driver date,
On 29/04/2024 17:43, Jani Nikula wrote:
> The driver date serves no useful purpose, because it's hardly ever
> updated. The information is misleading at best.
>
> As described in Documentation/gpu/drm-internals.rst:
>
> The driver date, formatted as MMDD, is meant to identify the date
>
On Mon, 29 Apr 2024, Jani Nikula wrote:
> The driver date serves no useful purpose, because it's hardly ever
> updated. The information is misleading at best.
>
> As described in Documentation/gpu/drm-internals.rst:
>
> The driver date, formatted as MMDD, is meant to identify the date
>
On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 04:38:55PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Apr 2024, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > Might also be a good idea to wait a bit in case there's any regression
> > reports for really old userspace. But I guess there's not a high chance
> > for that to happen here, so imo fine
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> Might also be a good idea to wait a bit in case there's any regression
> reports for really old userspace. But I guess there's not a high chance
> for that to happen here, so imo fine to just go ahead right away.
This small bit is definitely easier to
On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 08:53:15PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Apr 2024, Hamza Mahfooz wrote:
> > On 4/29/24 12:43, Jani Nikula wrote:
> >> The driver date serves no useful purpose, because it's hardly ever
> >> updated. The information is misleading at best.
> >>
> >> As described in
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024, Simon Ser wrote:
> On Monday, April 29th, 2024 at 18:43, Jani Nikula
> wrote:
>
>> The driver date serves no useful purpose, because it's hardly ever
>> updated. The information is misleading at best.
>>
>> As described in Documentation/gpu/drm-internals.rst:
>>
>> The
Jani Nikula writes:
> The driver date serves no useful purpose, because it's hardly ever
> updated. The information is misleading at best.
>
> As described in Documentation/gpu/drm-internals.rst:
>
> The driver date, formatted as MMDD, is meant to identify the date
> of the latest
On Monday, April 29th, 2024 at 18:43, Jani Nikula wrote:
> The driver date serves no useful purpose, because it's hardly ever
> updated. The information is misleading at best.
>
> As described in Documentation/gpu/drm-internals.rst:
>
> The driver date, formatted as MMDD, is meant to
On Mon, 29 Apr 2024, Hamza Mahfooz wrote:
> On 4/29/24 12:43, Jani Nikula wrote:
>> The driver date serves no useful purpose, because it's hardly ever
>> updated. The information is misleading at best.
>>
>> As described in Documentation/gpu/drm-internals.rst:
>>
>>The driver date,
On 4/29/24 12:43, Jani Nikula wrote:
The driver date serves no useful purpose, because it's hardly ever
updated. The information is misleading at best.
As described in Documentation/gpu/drm-internals.rst:
The driver date, formatted as MMDD, is meant to identify the date
of the latest
The driver date serves no useful purpose, because it's hardly ever
updated. The information is misleading at best.
As described in Documentation/gpu/drm-internals.rst:
The driver date, formatted as MMDD, is meant to identify the date
of the latest modification to the driver. However, as
13 matches
Mail list logo
