On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 12:22:44 +0100 Daniel Vetter <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 03:15:09PM -0200, Eugeni Dodonov wrote: > > This is mostly similar to Ironlake, with some register changes and > > additional tricks. > > > > Jesse mentioned that it would make more sense to move those bits into > > ivb-specific functions instead of making this work within ironlake ones, > > so I added the corresponding functions and setup their pointers > > accordingly. > > > > v2: Now the correct patch. > > > > Signed-off-by: Eugeni Dodonov <[email protected]> > > Anyone got an opinion on whether this is worth it power-consumption wise? > fbc has been a bit of a disaster and we have it disabled almost everywhere > ... We also need some workarounds on IVB we haven't implemented yet. I'd say just keep it out of IVB+ unless we can show a real benefit and have all the workarounds in place. -- Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
