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.
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
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
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,
