On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 12:57 PM, Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Quoting Chris Wilson (2017-12-01 17:55:15) >> Quoting Sean Paul (2017-12-01 17:48:17) >> > On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 12:44 PM, Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > > The current wait_for() is a little more complicated nowadays (variable >> > > W). >> > > >> > >> > Hmm, am I based off the wrong tree? I'm using drm-intel-next. >> >> drm-intel-next is what was sent as a PR; drm-intel-next-queued is always >> current. To be sure CI, doesn't complain about merge conflicts, base on >> drm-tip. > Ahhhh, i forgot about -queued. ok, will rebase. > Speaking of CI, do you have any instructions on how we might set up a > test system? I'm working on an igt test for the property now. > Just needs a compatible monitor and some test code? Yep. For testing, I exposed the property via sysfs and fiddle with it that way. > Could chamelium or something like that be used as a validator? You would have to implement the receiver side of HDCP on chamelium in order for this to work. So, probably not. Sean > -Chris _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
