On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 03:48:25PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote: > On Mon, 15 Sep 2014, Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 13, 2014 at 06:25:54PM +0200, Mario Kleiner wrote: > >> The current drm-next misses Ville's original Patch 14/19, the one i first > >> objected, then objected to my objection. It is needed to avoid actual > >> regressions. Attached a trivially rebased (v2) of Ville's patch to go on top > >> of drm-next, also as tgz in case my e-mail client mangles the patch again, > >> because it's one of those "email hates me" weeks. > > > > Oh dear, I've made a decent mess of all of this really. Picked up to make > > sure it doesn't get lost again. > > After all this nice ping pong our QA has reported a bisected regression > on this commit: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=84161 Looks like a minuscule timing change which resulted in us detecting a fifo underrun. Or at least I don't see any other related information that would indicate otherwise ... -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
