On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 06:30:09PM +, Zanoni, Paulo R wrote:
> Em Qua, 2015-10-21 às 09:24 +0200, Daniel Vetter escreveu:
> > On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 10:20:55AM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> > > On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 09:11:08AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 11:50
Em Qua, 2015-10-21 às 09:24 +0200, Daniel Vetter escreveu:
> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 10:20:55AM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 09:11:08AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 11:50:01AM -0200, Paulo Zanoni wrote:
> > > > One of the problems with the cur
On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 10:20:55AM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 09:11:08AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 11:50:01AM -0200, Paulo Zanoni wrote:
> > > One of the problems with the current code is that it frees the CFB and
> > > releases its drm_mm no
On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 09:11:08AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 11:50:01AM -0200, Paulo Zanoni wrote:
> > One of the problems with the current code is that it frees the CFB and
> > releases its drm_mm node as soon as we flip FBC's enable bit. This is
> > bad because after w
On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 11:50:01AM -0200, Paulo Zanoni wrote:
> One of the problems with the current code is that it frees the CFB and
> releases its drm_mm node as soon as we flip FBC's enable bit. This is
> bad because after we disbale FBC the hardware may still use the CFB
> for the rest of the
One of the problems with the current code is that it frees the CFB and
releases its drm_mm node as soon as we flip FBC's enable bit. This is
bad because after we disbale FBC the hardware may still use the CFB
for the rest of the frame, so in theory we should only release the
drm_mm node one frame a
