2014-04-29 8:20 GMT-03:00 Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx>: > 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 ... I believe you have already applied patches 1-4 a few weeks ago. Maybe you're getting conflicts because you're applying already-applied patches? :) > -Daniel > -- > Daniel Vetter > Software Engineer, Intel Corporation > +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch -- Paulo Zanoni _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
