On Wed, 2011-04-27 at 11:08 +0200, Michel D?nzer wrote:
> On Mit, 2011-04-27 at 18:58 +1000, Christopher James Halse Rogers
> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2011-04-27 at 10:32 +0200, Michel D?nzer wrote:
> > > On Mit, 2011-04-27 at 16:10 +1000, christopher.halse.rogers at
> > > canonical.com wrote:
> > > >
On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 13:46:30 -0700
Jesse Barnes wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 18:09:58 +1000
> Christopher James Halse Rogers
> wrote:
> > Ok. This appears to be surprisingly difficult. Particularly, the
> > vblank code indexes crtcs based on the driver-private numbering, and
> > there doesn't
On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 13:46:30 -0700
Jesse Barnes wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 18:09:58 +1000
> Christopher James Halse Rogers
> wrote:
> > Ok. This appears to be surprisingly difficult. Particularly, the
> > vblank code indexes crtcs based on the driver-private numbering, and
> > there doesn't
On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 18:09:58 +1000
Christopher James Halse Rogers
wrote:
> Ok. This appears to be surprisingly difficult. Particularly, the
> vblank code indexes crtcs based on the driver-private numbering, and
> there doesn't appear to be a generic interface to grab this number;
> Intel uses th
On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 18:09:58 +1000
Christopher James Halse Rogers
wrote:
> Ok. This appears to be surprisingly difficult. Particularly, the
> vblank code indexes crtcs based on the driver-private numbering, and
> there doesn't appear to be a generic interface to grab this number;
> Intel uses th
On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 10:32:36 +0200
Michel Dänzer wrote:
> On Mit, 2011-04-27 at 16:10 +1000, christopher.halse.rog...@canonical.com
> wrote:
> > From: Christopher James Halse Rogers
> >
> >
> > This is the least-bad behaviour. It means that we signal the
> > vblank event before it actually h
On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 10:32:36 +0200
Michel D?nzer wrote:
> On Mit, 2011-04-27 at 16:10 +1000, christopher.halse.rogers at canonical.com
> wrote:
> > From: Christopher James Halse Rogers > canonical.com>
> >
> > This is the least-bad behaviour. It means that we signal the
> > vblank event befor
On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 16:10:57 +1000
christopher.halse.rog...@canonical.com wrote:
> From: Christopher James Halse Rogers
>
> This is the least-bad behaviour. It means that we signal the
> vblank event before it actually happens, but since we're disabling
> vblanks there's no guarantee that it wi
On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 16:10:57 +1000
christopher.halse.rogers at canonical.com wrote:
> From: Christopher James Halse Rogers canonical.com>
>
> This is the least-bad behaviour. It means that we signal the
> vblank event before it actually happens, but since we're disabling
> vblanks there's no gu
On Wed, 2011-04-27 at 11:08 +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> On Mit, 2011-04-27 at 18:58 +1000, Christopher James Halse Rogers
> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2011-04-27 at 10:32 +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> > > On Mit, 2011-04-27 at 16:10 +1000, christopher.halse.rog...@canonical.com
> > > wrote:
> > > > Fro
On Wed, 2011-04-27 at 11:08 +0200, Michel D?nzer wrote:
> On Mit, 2011-04-27 at 18:58 +1000, Christopher James Halse Rogers
> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2011-04-27 at 10:32 +0200, Michel D?nzer wrote:
> > > On Mit, 2011-04-27 at 16:10 +1000, christopher.halse.rogers at
> > > canonical.com wrote:
> > > >
On Wed, 2011-04-27 at 10:32 +0200, Michel D?nzer wrote:
> On Mit, 2011-04-27 at 16:10 +1000, christopher.halse.rogers at canonical.com
> wrote:
> > From: Christopher James Halse Rogers > canonical.com>
> >
> > This is the least-bad behaviour. It means that we signal the
> > vblank event before
From: Christopher James Halse Rogers
This is the least-bad behaviour. It means that we signal the
vblank event before it actually happens, but since we're disabling
vblanks there's no guarantee that it will *ever* happen otherwise.
This prevents GL applications which use WaitMSC from hanging
in
On Mit, 2011-04-27 at 18:58 +1000, Christopher James Halse Rogers
wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-04-27 at 10:32 +0200, Michel D?nzer wrote:
> > On Mit, 2011-04-27 at 16:10 +1000, christopher.halse.rogers at
> > canonical.com wrote:
> > > From: Christopher James Halse Rogers > > canonical.com>
> > >
> >
On Mit, 2011-04-27 at 16:10 +1000, christopher.halse.rogers at canonical.com
wrote:
> From: Christopher James Halse Rogers canonical.com>
>
> This is the least-bad behaviour. It means that we signal the
> vblank event before it actually happens, but since we're disabling
> vblanks there's no gu
On Wed, 2011-04-27 at 11:08 +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> On Mit, 2011-04-27 at 18:58 +1000, Christopher James Halse Rogers
> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2011-04-27 at 10:32 +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> > > On Mit, 2011-04-27 at 16:10 +1000, christopher.halse.rog...@canonical.com
> > > wrote:
> > > > Fro
On Mit, 2011-04-27 at 18:58 +1000, Christopher James Halse Rogers
wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-04-27 at 10:32 +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> > On Mit, 2011-04-27 at 16:10 +1000, christopher.halse.rog...@canonical.com
> > wrote:
> > > From: Christopher James Halse Rogers
> > >
> > >
> > > This is the l
On Wed, 2011-04-27 at 10:32 +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> On Mit, 2011-04-27 at 16:10 +1000, christopher.halse.rog...@canonical.com
> wrote:
> > From: Christopher James Halse Rogers
> >
> >
> > This is the least-bad behaviour. It means that we signal the
> > vblank event before it actually hap
On Mit, 2011-04-27 at 16:10 +1000, christopher.halse.rog...@canonical.com wrote:
> From: Christopher James Halse Rogers
>
> This is the least-bad behaviour. It means that we signal the
> vblank event before it actually happens, but since we're disabling
> vblanks there's no guarantee that it wil
From: Christopher James Halse Rogers
This is the least-bad behaviour. It means that we signal the
vblank event before it actually happens, but since we're disabling
vblanks there's no guarantee that it will *ever* happen otherwise.
This prevents GL applications which use WaitMSC from hanging
in
20 matches
Mail list logo
