On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 09:34:28AM -0300, Paulo Zanoni wrote: > 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? :) Ah, that might indeed explain why the conflict looks so funny ;-) /me puts on the idiot hat Thanks, 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
