On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 10:46:02AM -0500, Adam Jackson wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-12-17 at 18:30 +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>
> > All pulled into my drm misc branch.
>
> Ugh, wish I'd caught this earlier. I'm not entirely thrilled with
> requiring non-zero clock, it's not a concept that makes sense
On Wed, 2014-12-17 at 18:30 +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> All pulled into my drm misc branch.
Ugh, wish I'd caught this earlier. I'm not entirely thrilled with
requiring non-zero clock, it's not a concept that makes sense on virtual
hardware.
- ajax
On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 12:09:47PM -0500, Alex Deucher wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 6:56 AM, wrote:
> > From: Ville Syrjälä
> >
> > We had a bug in i915 land recently where X passed in a zeroed mode with
> > mode_valid=1 to setcrtc. That didn't go down so well and caused a
> > div-by-zero
From: Ville Syrjälä
We had a bug in i915 land recently where X passed in a zeroed mode with
mode_valid=1 to setcrtc. That didn't go down so well and caused a
div-by-zero in i915.
For a long time I've been thinking that we need some real checks to
validate the modes we feed into the hardware. I
On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 6:56 AM, wrote:
> From: Ville Syrjälä
>
> We had a bug in i915 land recently where X passed in a zeroed mode with
> mode_valid=1 to setcrtc. That didn't go down so well and caused a
> div-by-zero in i915.
>
> For a long time I've been thinking that we need some real che
