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 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
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
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
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