On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 10:49:22PM +, Daniel Stone wrote:
> Hi,
> Yikes, I think we're talking past each other a bit. So I thought a v2
> might help.
>
> On 24 March 2015 at 08:55, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 04:58:47PM +, Daniel Stone wrote:
> >> On 23 March 2015 at
Hi,
Yikes, I think we're talking past each other a bit. So I thought a v2
might help.
On 24 March 2015 at 08:55, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 04:58:47PM +, Daniel Stone wrote:
>> On 23 March 2015 at 08:20, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>> > Ok this is quite a bit a different beast
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 04:58:47PM +, Daniel Stone wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 23 March 2015 at 08:20, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 04:32:36AM +, Daniel Stone wrote:
> >> This series ends up touching pretty much all the drivers, by virtue of
> >> turning
> >> crtc->mode (in
Hi,
On 23 March 2015 at 08:20, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 04:32:36AM +, Daniel Stone wrote:
>> This series ends up touching pretty much all the drivers, by virtue of
>> turning
>> crtc->mode (in particular) into both a const and a pointer.
>
> Ok this is quite a bit a
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 04:32:36AM +, Daniel Stone wrote:
> Well, that escalated quickly.
>
> I've been looking at adding modesetting support to the atomic ioctl, and this
> is what I've ended up with so far. It's definitely not perfect, but given how
> out of hand it's got at the moment, I
Well, that escalated quickly.
I've been looking at adding modesetting support to the atomic ioctl, and this
is what I've ended up with so far. It's definitely not perfect, but given how
out of hand it's got at the moment, I wanted to send this out as an RFC before
I spent too long polishing it
