On Tue, 29 Jan 2019, Jani Nikula wrote:
> This is obviously a backward/forward incompatible change. I've been
> told there are no systems out there using the field.
There are systems like that, in our CI too. Back to the drawing board.
BR,
Jani.
--
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Cent
On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 03:31:21PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
> We've supported the opregion RVDA/RVDS fields for VBT size >= 6 KB since
> commit 04ebaadb9f2d ("drm/i915/opregion: handle VBT sizes bigger than 6
> KB"). That's three years, almost to the date.
>
> The implementation was based on spec
We've supported the opregion RVDA/RVDS fields for VBT size >= 6 KB since
commit 04ebaadb9f2d ("drm/i915/opregion: handle VBT sizes bigger than 6
KB"). That's three years, almost to the date.
The implementation was based on spec only, in anticipation of systems
with big VBT. Now, the spec has been
On Thu, 13 Dec 2018, Jani Nikula wrote:
> We've supported the opregion RVDA/RVDS fields for VBT size >= 6 KB since
> commit 04ebaadb9f2d ("drm/i915/opregion: handle VBT sizes bigger than 6
> KB"). That's three years, almost to the date.
>
> The implementation was based on spec only, in anticipatio
We've supported the opregion RVDA/RVDS fields for VBT size >= 6 KB since
commit 04ebaadb9f2d ("drm/i915/opregion: handle VBT sizes bigger than 6
KB"). That's three years, almost to the date.
The implementation was based on spec only, in anticipation of systems
with big VBT. Now, the spec has been
