On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 08:48:48AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 09:15:29AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 2:17 PM, <ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com> wrote: > > > From: Ville Syrj?l? <ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com> > > > > > > Keeping the modes in the same order as we probe them makes it a bit > > > easier to track what's happening. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Ville Syrj?l? <ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com> > > > > I've just added a regression fixer to my -fixes queue which depends > > upon the old behaviour ... I'll make a note to fix this once stuff is > > merged together again. For reference the patch this will break in > > -fixes is: > > > > commit c3456fb3e4712d0448592af3c5d644c9472cd3c1 > > Author: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter at ffwll.ch> > > Date: Mon Jun 10 09:47:58 2013 +0200 > > > > drm/i915: prefer VBT modes for SVDO-LVDS over EDID > > That is not the only place to have a subtle dependence upon the ordering > of modes in the list.
I've now included latest drm-next into drm-intel-nightly. I guess we'll find out soon ;-) -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch
