Paulo Zanoni writes:
> Em Sex, 2017-06-09 às 22:40 +0300, Ville Syrjälä escreveu:
>> On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 08:24:59PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
>> Just a random idea that popped to my head (probably not for the first
>> time); I think the most informative option would be to make the
>> kernel
Chris Wilson writes:
> I just don't see the test case as being a good reason to claim the
> kernel behaviour is broken. The kernel may report any of the reasons as
> the one that caused FBC to be disabled (they are all valid, it is only
> the order in which we test, or the order in which we set t
Em Sex, 2017-06-09 às 22:40 +0300, Ville Syrjälä escreveu:
> On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 08:24:59PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > Quoting Gabriel Krisman Bertazi (2017-06-01 16:36:08)
> > > If the atomic commit doesn't include any new plane, there is no
> > > need to
> > > choose a new CRTC for FBC, a
Em Sex, 2017-06-09 às 20:24 +0100, Chris Wilson escreveu:
> Quoting Gabriel Krisman Bertazi (2017-06-01 16:36:08)
> > If the atomic commit doesn't include any new plane, there is no
> > need to
> > choose a new CRTC for FBC, and the intel_fbc_choose_crtc() will
> > bail out
> > early. Although, if
On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 08:24:59PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> Quoting Gabriel Krisman Bertazi (2017-06-01 16:36:08)
> > If the atomic commit doesn't include any new plane, there is no need to
> > choose a new CRTC for FBC, and the intel_fbc_choose_crtc() will bail out
> > early. Although, if the
Quoting Gabriel Krisman Bertazi (2017-06-01 16:36:08)
> If the atomic commit doesn't include any new plane, there is no need to
> choose a new CRTC for FBC, and the intel_fbc_choose_crtc() will bail out
> early. Although, if the FBC setup failed in the previous commit, if the
> current commit does
Em Qui, 2017-06-01 às 16:09 -0700, Manasi Navare escreveu:
> The modified commit message looks good to me.
>
> Reviewed-by: Manasi Navare
Reviewed-by: Paulo Zanoni
As a longer term plan we could try to think some way to reduce the
complexity between the Kernel and IGT interaction here: maybe t
The modified commit message looks good to me.
Reviewed-by: Manasi Navare
On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 12:36:08PM -0300, Gabriel Krisman Bertazi wrote:
> If the atomic commit doesn't include any new plane, there is no need to
> choose a new CRTC for FBC, and the intel_fbc_choose_crtc() will bail out
If the atomic commit doesn't include any new plane, there is no need to
choose a new CRTC for FBC, and the intel_fbc_choose_crtc() will bail out
early. Although, if the FBC setup failed in the previous commit, if the
current commit doesn't include new plane update, it tries to overwrite
no_fbc_rea
