On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 02:04:31PM +0200, Patrik Jakobsson wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 06:59:10PM +0300, ville.syrj...@linux.intel.com wrote:
> > From: Ville Syrjälä
> >
> > intel_modeset_readout_hw_state() seems like the more appropriate place
> > for
Hey,
Op 14-09-15 om 16:23 schreef Ville Syrjälä:
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 01:57:45PM +0200, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
>> Op 10-09-15 om 17:59 schreef ville.syrj...@linux.intel.com:
>>> From: Ville Syrjälä
>>>
>>> intel_modeset_readout_hw_state() seems like the more
Op 10-09-15 om 17:59 schreef ville.syrj...@linux.intel.com:
> From: Ville Syrjälä
>
> intel_modeset_readout_hw_state() seems like the more appropriate place
> for populating the scanline_offset and timestamping constants than
> intel_sanitize_crtc() since they are
On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 06:59:10PM +0300, ville.syrj...@linux.intel.com wrote:
> From: Ville Syrjälä
>
> intel_modeset_readout_hw_state() seems like the more appropriate place
> for populating the scanline_offset and timestamping constants than
>
On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 01:57:45PM +0200, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
> Op 10-09-15 om 17:59 schreef ville.syrj...@linux.intel.com:
> > From: Ville Syrjälä
> >
> > intel_modeset_readout_hw_state() seems like the more appropriate place
> > for populating the
From: Ville Syrjälä
intel_modeset_readout_hw_state() seems like the more appropriate place
for populating the scanline_offset and timestamping constants than
intel_sanitize_crtc() since they are basically part of the state we
read out.
Cc: Maarten Lankhorst