On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 12:22:44 +0100 Daniel Vetter <daniel at ffwll.ch> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 03:15:09PM -0200, Eugeni Dodonov wrote: > > This is mostly similar to Ironlake, with some register changes and > > additional tricks. > > > > Jesse mentioned that it would make more sense to move those bits into > > ivb-specific functions instead of making this work within ironlake ones, > > so I added the corresponding functions and setup their pointers > > accordingly. > > > > v2: Now the correct patch. > > > > Signed-off-by: Eugeni Dodonov <eugeni.dodonov at intel.com> > > Anyone got an opinion on whether this is worth it power-consumption wise? > fbc has been a bit of a disaster and we have it disabled almost everywhere > ... We also need some workarounds on IVB we haven't implemented yet. I'd say just keep it out of IVB+ unless we can show a real benefit and have all the workarounds in place. -- Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/intel-gfx/attachments/20120117/1f303dd1/attachment.pgp>
