On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 04:38:24PM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote: > > Are you saying the Intel DDX currently derives a different meaning to > > the intented behaviour? in which case it can still be changed to not do > > that? > > I still disagree though. This provides all the information I need to > support variable sized cursors and we can use large cursors today. Note that I won't fight if you find it useful and people are fine with that new meaning. Can we just throw a patch actually documented what you want those values to be? The WM patch still needs to take the actual cursor size though. Keeping those global limits on the crtc struct still looks weird. -- Damien _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
