or more information.
dmesg attached.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dri-devel/attachments/20121003/3adc6e50/attachment.html>
the bug.
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dri-devel/attachments/20121003/d35273ea/attachment.html>
ttp://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dri-devel/attachments/20121003/18f3cf79/attachment.html>
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 9:50 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 09/30/2012 11:29 PM, Leela Krishna Amudala wrote:
>> Hello Stephen Warren,
>>
>> The binding names that I use in my dts file should match with the
>> names given in
>> http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dri-devel/2012-July/024875.html
On 10/02/2012 10:03 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 08:46:32AM +0200, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
>> On 10/01/2012 11:47 AM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
>>> I was doing a evil hack where I 'released' lru_lock to lockdep before doing
>>> the annotation
>>> for a blocking acquire, and le
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 9:45 AM, Thomas Hellstrom
wrote:
> On 10/02/2012 10:03 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 08:46:32AM +0200, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
>>>
>>> On 10/01/2012 11:47 AM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
I was doing a evil hack where I 'released' lru_lock to
Hey,
Op 03-10-12 09:45, Thomas Hellstrom schreef:
> On 10/02/2012 10:03 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 08:46:32AM +0200, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
>>> On 10/01/2012 11:47 AM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
I was doing a evil hack where I 'released' lru_lock to lockdep before
>>>
On 10/03/2012 09:57 AM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
> Hey,
>
> Op 03-10-12 09:45, Thomas Hellstrom schreef:
>> On 10/02/2012 10:03 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>>> On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 08:46:32AM +0200, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
On 10/01/2012 11:47 AM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
> I was doing a ev
On 10/03/2012 09:54 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 9:45 AM, Thomas Hellstrom
> wrote:
>> On 10/02/2012 10:03 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>>> On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 08:46:32AM +0200, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
On 10/01/2012 11:47 AM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
> I was doing a
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 10:37 AM, Thomas Hellstrom
wrote:
>>> So if I understand you correctly, the reservation changes in TTM are
>>> motivated by the
>>> fact that otherwise, in the generic reservation code, lockdep can only be
>>> annotated for a trylock and not a waiting lock, when it *is* in
On 10/03/2012 10:53 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 10:37 AM, Thomas Hellstrom
> wrote:
So if I understand you correctly, the reservation changes in TTM are
motivated by the
fact that otherwise, in the generic reservation code, lockdep can only be
annotated f
bug.
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dri-devel/attachments/20121003/68f1f154/attachment.html>
I took a quick look on the fencing and added some thoughts on
shared fences:
On 09/28/2012 02:43 PM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
> This adds support for a generic reservations framework that can be
> hooked up to ttm and dma-buf and allows easy sharing of reservations
> across devices.
>
> The idea i
On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 2:10 PM, Maarten Lankhorst
wrote:
> How do you want to deal with the case where Y' and CbCr are different
> hardware buffers?
> Could some support for 2d arrays be added in case Y' and CbCr are separated
> into top/bottom fields?
> How are semi-planar/planar formats handle
Op 03-10-12 12:53, Thomas Hellstrom schreef:
> On 10/03/2012 10:53 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 10:37 AM, Thomas Hellstrom
>> wrote:
> So if I understand you correctly, the reservation changes in TTM are
> motivated by the
> fact that otherwise, in the generic re
---
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dri-devel/attachments/20121003/09f30586/attachment-0001.html>
On 10/03/2012 02:46 PM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
> Op 03-10-12 12:53, Thomas Hellstrom schreef:
>> On 10/03/2012 10:53 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>>> On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 10:37 AM, Thomas Hellstrom >> vmware.com> wrote:
>> So if I understand you correctly, the reservation changes in TTM are
>>>
.
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dri-devel/attachments/20121003/e12fa991/attachment.html>
Hi Jesse,
FYI, kernel build failed on
tree: git://people.freedesktop.org/~danvet/drm-intel.git drm-intel-fixes
head: 2cb47a9c6d49f2961dcf57f69ff968e65d48e876
commit: 307daa1b856699f1d4acc3972374017c3e99d331 [15/18] drm/i915: TLB
invalidation with MI_FLUSH_DW requires a post-sync op
config: x
On Wed, Oct 03, 2012 at 10:15:38PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> Hi Jesse,
>
> FYI, kernel build failed on
>
> tree: git://people.freedesktop.org/~danvet/drm-intel.git drm-intel-fixes
> head: 2cb47a9c6d49f2961dcf57f69ff968e65d48e876
> commit: 307daa1b856699f1d4acc3972374017c3e99d331 [15/18] dr
Reviewed-by: Alex Deucher
On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 9:12 AM, Marek Ol??k wrote:
> ---
> radeon/radeon_surface.c |2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/radeon/radeon_surface.c b/radeon/radeon_surface.c
> index 80b1505..03b1c5d 100644
> --- a/radeon/radeon_surfa
---
radeon/radeon_surface.c |2 --
1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/radeon/radeon_surface.c b/radeon/radeon_surface.c
index 03b1c5d..c62cbf9 100644
--- a/radeon/radeon_surface.c
+++ b/radeon/radeon_surface.c
@@ -797,7 +797,6 @@ static int eg_surface_init(struct radeon_surface_manag
This allows texturing with depth-stencil buffers directly without the copy
to CB. The separate miptree description for stencil is added, because
the stencil mipmap offsets are not really depth offsets/4 (at least
for the texture units).
---
radeon/radeon_surface.c | 197 ++
On Mon, Oct 01, 2012 at 10:53:08AM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 09/24/2012 09:35 AM, Steffen Trumtrar wrote:
> > Parse a display-node with timings and hardware-specs from devictree.
>
> > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/video/display
> > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/vid
There is a typo here so the test for AST2200 doesn't work. Clang found
this:
drivers/gpu/drm/ast/ast_post.c:282:42: warning: comparison of constant
2200 with expression of type 'enum ast_chip' is always false
[-Wtautological-constant-out-of-range-compare]
Signed-off-by: Dan Carpen
On 10/02/2012 10:06 PM, Leela Krishna Amudala wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 9:50 PM, Stephen Warren
> wrote:
>> On 09/30/2012 11:29 PM, Leela Krishna Amudala wrote:
>>> Hello Stephen Warren,
>>>
>>> The binding names that I use in my dts file should match with the
>>> names given in
>>> http:/
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 9:08 PM, Dave Airlie wrote:
>
> So this pull is for my drm-next-merged branch which is my drm-next branch
> merged with your tree, and some fixups applied to the merge.
Ok, as usual I actually wanted to do the merge myself despite the
annoying conflicts (this *really* is th
On 10/02/2012 10:03 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 08:46:32AM +0200, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
On 10/01/2012 11:47 AM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
I was doing a evil hack where I 'released' lru_lock to lockdep before doing the
annotation
for a blocking acquire, and left trylock an
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 9:45 AM, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
> On 10/02/2012 10:03 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 08:46:32AM +0200, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
>>>
>>> On 10/01/2012 11:47 AM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
I was doing a evil hack where I 'released' lru_lock to l
Hey,
Op 03-10-12 09:45, Thomas Hellstrom schreef:
> On 10/02/2012 10:03 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 08:46:32AM +0200, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
>>> On 10/01/2012 11:47 AM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
I was doing a evil hack where I 'released' lru_lock to lockdep before
>>>
On 10/03/2012 09:57 AM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
Hey,
Op 03-10-12 09:45, Thomas Hellstrom schreef:
On 10/02/2012 10:03 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 08:46:32AM +0200, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
On 10/01/2012 11:47 AM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
I was doing a evil hack where I '
On 10/03/2012 09:54 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 9:45 AM, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
On 10/02/2012 10:03 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 08:46:32AM +0200, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
On 10/01/2012 11:47 AM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
I was doing a evil hack where I
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 10:37 AM, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
>>> So if I understand you correctly, the reservation changes in TTM are
>>> motivated by the
>>> fact that otherwise, in the generic reservation code, lockdep can only be
>>> annotated for a trylock and not a waiting lock, when it *is* in f
On 10/03/2012 10:53 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 10:37 AM, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
So if I understand you correctly, the reservation changes in TTM are
motivated by the
fact that otherwise, in the generic reservation code, lockdep can only be
annotated for a trylock and not a
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=54662
Christian König changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED
--- Comment #7 from Christian K
I took a quick look on the fencing and added some thoughts on
shared fences:
On 09/28/2012 02:43 PM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
This adds support for a generic reservations framework that can be
hooked up to ttm and dma-buf and allows easy sharing of reservations
across devices.
The idea is that
On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 2:10 PM, Maarten Lankhorst
wrote:
> How do you want to deal with the case where Y' and CbCr are different
> hardware buffers?
> Could some support for 2d arrays be added in case Y' and CbCr are separated
> into top/bottom fields?
> How are semi-planar/planar formats handle
Op 03-10-12 12:53, Thomas Hellstrom schreef:
> On 10/03/2012 10:53 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 10:37 AM, Thomas Hellstrom
>> wrote:
> So if I understand you correctly, the reservation changes in TTM are
> motivated by the
> fact that otherwise, in the generic re
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=53544
Paul Menzel changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Incorrect modeline due to |[915GM] Incorrect modeline
On 10/03/2012 02:46 PM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
Op 03-10-12 12:53, Thomas Hellstrom schreef:
On 10/03/2012 10:53 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 10:37 AM, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
So if I understand you correctly, the reservation changes in TTM are
motivated by the
fact that o
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=52997
--- Comment #10 from Alex Deucher ---
Make sure you update your 32 bit 3D driver as you appear to be using a 64 bit
distro and wine requires a 32 bit 3D driver.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
_
Hi Jesse,
FYI, kernel build failed on
tree: git://people.freedesktop.org/~danvet/drm-intel.git drm-intel-fixes
head: 2cb47a9c6d49f2961dcf57f69ff968e65d48e876
commit: 307daa1b856699f1d4acc3972374017c3e99d331 [15/18] drm/i915: TLB
invalidation with MI_FLUSH_DW requires a post-sync op
config: x
On Wed, Oct 03, 2012 at 10:15:38PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> Hi Jesse,
>
> FYI, kernel build failed on
>
> tree: git://people.freedesktop.org/~danvet/drm-intel.git drm-intel-fixes
> head: 2cb47a9c6d49f2961dcf57f69ff968e65d48e876
> commit: 307daa1b856699f1d4acc3972374017c3e99d331 [15/18] dr
Reviewed-by: Alex Deucher
On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 9:12 AM, Marek Olšák wrote:
> ---
> radeon/radeon_surface.c |2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/radeon/radeon_surface.c b/radeon/radeon_surface.c
> index 80b1505..03b1c5d 100644
> --- a/radeon/radeon_surfa
---
radeon/radeon_surface.c |2 --
1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/radeon/radeon_surface.c b/radeon/radeon_surface.c
index 03b1c5d..c62cbf9 100644
--- a/radeon/radeon_surface.c
+++ b/radeon/radeon_surface.c
@@ -797,7 +797,6 @@ static int eg_surface_init(struct radeon_surface_manag
This allows texturing with depth-stencil buffers directly without the copy
to CB. The separate miptree description for stencil is added, because
the stencil mipmap offsets are not really depth offsets/4 (at least
for the texture units).
---
radeon/radeon_surface.c | 197 ++
We don't want to build libdrm tests with Cairo support under Poky, since
they're never used and also cause a build loop from libdrm -> cairo ->
mesa-dri -> libdrm.
To avoid variance in build results, introduce a --disable-cairo-tests
switch.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Stone
---
configure.ac | 14 +
On Mon, Oct 01, 2012 at 10:53:08AM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 09/24/2012 09:35 AM, Steffen Trumtrar wrote:
> > Parse a display-node with timings and hardware-specs from devictree.
>
> > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/video/display
> > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/vid
There is a typo here so the test for AST2200 doesn't work. Clang found
this:
drivers/gpu/drm/ast/ast_post.c:282:42: warning: comparison of constant
2200 with expression of type 'enum ast_chip' is always false
[-Wtautological-constant-out-of-range-compare]
Signed-off-by: Dan Carpen
On 10/02/2012 10:06 PM, Leela Krishna Amudala wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 9:50 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>> On 09/30/2012 11:29 PM, Leela Krishna Amudala wrote:
>>> Hello Stephen Warren,
>>>
>>> The binding names that I use in my dts file should match with the
>>> names given in
>>> http://li
We don't want to build libdrm tests with Cairo support under Poky, since
they're never used and also cause a build loop from libdrm -> cairo ->
mesa-dri -> libdrm.
To avoid variance in build results, introduce a --disable-cairo-tests
switch.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Stone
---
configure.ac | 18 +
We don't want to build libdrm tests with Cairo support under Poky, since
they're never used and also cause a build loop from libdrm -> cairo ->
mesa-dri -> libdrm.
To avoid variance in build results, introduce a --disable-cairo-tests
switch.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Stone
---
configure.ac
Hello Dave,
this patch set updates exynos drm framework and includes minor fixups.
and this pull request except hdmi device tree support patch set posted
by Rahul Sharma because that includes media side patch so for this
patch set, we may have git pull one more time in addition, if we get
an agree
53 matches
Mail list logo
