On 23/09/14 15:51, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 03:48:25PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
>> On Mon, 15 Sep 2014, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>>> On Sat, Sep 13, 2014 at 06:25:54PM +0200, Mario Kleiner wrote:
The current drm-next misses Ville's original Patch 14/19, the one i first
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 03:48:25PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Sep 2014, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 13, 2014 at 06:25:54PM +0200, Mario Kleiner wrote:
> >> The current drm-next misses Ville's original Patch 14/19, the one i first
> >> objected, then objected to my objection. I
On Mon, 15 Sep 2014, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 13, 2014 at 06:25:54PM +0200, Mario Kleiner wrote:
>> The current drm-next misses Ville's original Patch 14/19, the one i first
>> objected, then objected to my objection. It is needed to avoid actual
>> regressions. Attached a trivially reba
On Sat, Sep 13, 2014 at 06:25:54PM +0200, Mario Kleiner wrote:
> The current drm-next misses Ville's original Patch 14/19, the one i first
> objected, then objected to my objection. It is needed to avoid actual
> regressions. Attached a trivially rebased (v2) of Ville's patch to go on top
> of drm-
The current drm-next misses Ville's original Patch 14/19, the one i
first objected, then objected to my objection. It is needed to avoid
actual regressions. Attached a trivially rebased (v2) of Ville's patch
to go on top of drm-next, also as tgz in case my e-mail client mangles
the patch again,
I thought about this one again and opposed to my previous comment now think
it's fine, also for drivers without hw vblank counter queries.
-mario
On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 1:49 PM, wrote:
> From: Ville Syrj?l?
>
> If we already have a timestamp for the current vblank counter, don't
> update it
On Wed, Aug 06, 2014 at 02:56:14PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 06, 2014 at 02:49:57PM +0300, ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com
> wrote:
> > From: Ville Syrj?l?
> >
> > If we already have a timestamp for the current vblank counter, don't
> > update it with a new timestmap. Small erro
On Wed, Aug 06, 2014 at 02:49:57PM +0300, ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com
wrote:
> From: Ville Syrj?l?
>
> If we already have a timestamp for the current vblank counter, don't
> update it with a new timestmap. Small errors can creep in between two
> timestamp queries for the same vblank count,
From: Ville Syrj?l?
If we already have a timestamp for the current vblank counter, don't
update it with a new timestmap. Small errors can creep in between two
timestamp queries for the same vblank count, which could be confusing to
userspace when it queries the timestamp for the same vblank seque
