On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 01:18:50PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 11:14:05AM -0300, Paulo Zanoni wrote: > > 2014-03-07 13:32 GMT-03:00 <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > > > From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > intel_pipe_wm will be used to track the state in different stages > > > of the watermark update process. For that we need to keep a bit > > > more state in intel_pipe_wm. > > > > > > We also need to separate the multi-pipe intel_wm_config computation > > > from ilk_compute_wm_parameters() as that one deals with the future > > > state, and we need the intel_wm_config to match the current hardware > > > state at the time we do the watermark merging for multiple pipes. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Needs minor rebase, but looks correct. > > Ok in my eyes this conflict looks a bit tricky, and since I lack the > insight of you two for the watermark code I'd prefer a rebased version. Or is this just because dinq is a bit out of sync with -nightly? In that case I'm stalling on Dave to open up drm-next so that I can rebase the entire shebang ... -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
