On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 04:59:31PM +, Eric Engestrom wrote:
> On Wednesday, 2016-11-09 14:13:40 +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 12:42 PM, Eric Engestrom
> > wrote:
> > >> Well, had to drop it again since it didn't compile:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 04:59:31PM +, Eric Engestrom wrote:
> On Wednesday, 2016-11-09 14:13:40 +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 12:42 PM, Eric Engestrom
> > wrote:
> > >> Well, had to drop it again since it didn't compile:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> CC [M]
On Thu, 10 Nov 2016, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> Hi Jani,
>
> On Thursday 10 Nov 2016 12:30:09 Jani Nikula wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 Nov 2016, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
>> > The issue here is that printk can't format the fourcc as a string by
>> > itself. There's a bunch
On Thu, 10 Nov 2016, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> Hi Jani,
>
> On Thursday 10 Nov 2016 12:30:09 Jani Nikula wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 Nov 2016, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
>> > The issue here is that printk can't format the fourcc as a string by
>> > itself. There's a bunch of places in the kernel where a
Hi Jani,
On Thursday 10 Nov 2016 12:30:09 Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Nov 2016, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > On Wednesday 09 Nov 2016 16:59:31 Eric Engestrom wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, 2016-11-09 14:13:40 +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 12:42 PM, Eric Engestrom wrote:
>
Hi Jani,
On Thursday 10 Nov 2016 12:30:09 Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Nov 2016, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > On Wednesday 09 Nov 2016 16:59:31 Eric Engestrom wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, 2016-11-09 14:13:40 +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 12:42 PM, Eric Engestrom wrote:
>
On Thu, 10 Nov 2016, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> Hi Eric,
>
> On Wednesday 09 Nov 2016 16:59:31 Eric Engestrom wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 2016-11-09 14:13:40 +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>> > On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 12:42 PM, Eric Engestrom wrote:
>> > >> Well, had to
On Thu, 10 Nov 2016, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> Hi Eric,
>
> On Wednesday 09 Nov 2016 16:59:31 Eric Engestrom wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 2016-11-09 14:13:40 +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>> > On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 12:42 PM, Eric Engestrom wrote:
>> > >> Well, had to drop it again since it didn't
Hi Eric,
On Wednesday 09 Nov 2016 16:59:31 Eric Engestrom wrote:
> On Wednesday, 2016-11-09 14:13:40 +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 12:42 PM, Eric Engestrom wrote:
> > >> Well, had to drop it again since it didn't compile:
> > >> CC [M] drivers/gpu/drm/drm_blend.o
> >
Hi Eric,
On Wednesday 09 Nov 2016 16:59:31 Eric Engestrom wrote:
> On Wednesday, 2016-11-09 14:13:40 +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 12:42 PM, Eric Engestrom wrote:
> > >> Well, had to drop it again since it didn't compile:
> > >> CC [M] drivers/gpu/drm/drm_blend.o
> >
On Wednesday, 2016-11-09 14:13:40 +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 12:42 PM, Eric Engestrom
> wrote:
> >> Well, had to drop it again since it didn't compile:
> >>
> >>
> >> CC [M] drivers/gpu/drm/drm_blend.o
> >> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic.c: In
On Wednesday, 2016-11-09 14:13:40 +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 12:42 PM, Eric Engestrom
> wrote:
> >> Well, had to drop it again since it didn't compile:
> >>
> >>
> >> CC [M] drivers/gpu/drm/drm_blend.o
> >> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic.c: In function
On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 12:42 PM, Eric Engestrom
wrote:
>> Well, had to drop it again since it didn't compile:
>>
>>
>> CC [M] drivers/gpu/drm/drm_blend.o
>> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic.c: In function ‘drm_atomic_plane_print_state’:
>>
On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 12:42 PM, Eric Engestrom
wrote:
>> Well, had to drop it again since it didn't compile:
>>
>>
>> CC [M] drivers/gpu/drm/drm_blend.o
>> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic.c: In function ‘drm_atomic_plane_print_state’:
>> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic.c:920:5: error: too few arguments
On Wednesday, 2016-11-09 02:13:25 +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 02:09:16AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 12:17:52AM +, Eric Engestrom wrote:
> > > The function's behaviour was changed in 90844f00049e, without changing
> > > its signature,
On Wednesday, 2016-11-09 02:13:25 +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 02:09:16AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 12:17:52AM +, Eric Engestrom wrote:
> > > The function's behaviour was changed in 90844f00049e, without changing
> > > its signature,
On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 02:09:16AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 12:17:52AM +, Eric Engestrom wrote:
> > The function's behaviour was changed in 90844f00049e, without changing
> > its signature, causing people to keep using it the old way without
> > realising they were
On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 02:09:16AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 12:17:52AM +, Eric Engestrom wrote:
> > The function's behaviour was changed in 90844f00049e, without changing
> > its signature, causing people to keep using it the old way without
> > realising they were
On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 12:17:52AM +, Eric Engestrom wrote:
> The function's behaviour was changed in 90844f00049e, without changing
> its signature, causing people to keep using it the old way without
> realising they were now leaking memory.
> Rob Clark also noticed it was also allocating
On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 12:17:52AM +, Eric Engestrom wrote:
> The function's behaviour was changed in 90844f00049e, without changing
> its signature, causing people to keep using it the old way without
> realising they were now leaking memory.
> Rob Clark also noticed it was also allocating
20 matches
Mail list logo