On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 12:32 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 9:13 PM, Stéphane Marchesin
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 2:41 AM, Chris Wilson
>> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 03:49:26PM -0700, Stéphane Marchesin wrote:
It's basically the same deal as the RC6+
From: Wei Yongjun
The dereference should be moved below the NULL test.
Signed-off-by: Wei Yongjun
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_context.c | 3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_context.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_context.c
Report back the user error of attempting to setup a CRTC with an invalid
framebuffer pitch. This is trickier than it should be as on gen4, there
is a restriction that tiled surfaces must have a stride less than 16k -
which is less than the largest supported CRTC size.
v2: Fix the limits for gen3
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 2:01 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> Can you please resubmit this as a proper patch with a committ message,
> signed-off-by line and everything else (see
> Documentation/SubmittingPatches).
> -Daniel
>
Done, sent in a separate thread:
http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/intel
Report back the user error of attempting to setup a CRTC with an invalid
framebuffer pitch. This is trickier than it should be as on gen4, there
is a restriction that tiled surfaces must have a stride less than 16k -
which is less than the largest supported CRTC size.
References: https://bugs.free
In some virtualized environments (e.g. XEN), there is irrelevant ISA bridge in
the system. To work reliably, we should scan trhough all the ISA bridge
devices and check for the first match, instead of only checking the first one.
Signed-off-by: Rui Guo
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c | 19
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 04:14:25PM +1000, Jonathan Gray wrote:
> clock_gettime is in libc not librt on OpenBSD so check
> to see if linking librt is required.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jonathan Gray
Thank you, pushed.
-Chris
--
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre
___
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 08:54:35PM +0800, G.R. wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 23, 2012 at 2:51 PM, G.R.
> wrote:
> >>> Hi Jesse, I think I need to resend the patch with proper comment to
> >>> have it formally accepted.
> >>> Any guide line for formal patch submission? Do I need to start a
> >>> separate t