On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 10:52 AM, Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 10:49 AM, Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 9:59 AM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> Changes since 20130628: >>> >>> The regulator tree gained a build failure so I used the version from >>> next-20130628. >>> >>> The trivial tree gained a conflict against the fbdev tree. >>> >>> The arm-soc tree gained a conflict against the net-next tree. >>> >>> The akpm tree lost a few patches that turned up elsewhere and I removed 2 >>> that were causing run time problems. >>> >> >> [ CC drm and drm-intel folks ] >> >> [ Did not check any relevant MLs ] >> >> Please, see attached dmesg output. > > Clock mismatch, one for Jesse to figure out. Note that this patch is > for 3.12, I simply haven't yet gotten around to properly split my > patch queue so a few spilled into -next. I'll do that now. I like lightspeed-fast replies :-). Guess "drm/i915: get mode clock when reading the pipe config v9" [1] is the cause. - Sedat - [1] http://cgit.freedesktop.org/~danvet/drm-intel/commit/?h=drm-intel-next-queued&id=d325d8b4f351f9d45e7c8baabf581fd21f343133 > -Daniel > -- > Daniel Vetter > Software Engineer, Intel Corporation > +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
