On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 14:23:26 +0100, Chris Wilson <ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk> wrote: > On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 22:56:34 +1000, Christopher James Halse Rogers > <christopher.halse.rog...@canonical.com> wrote: > > The 965 docs say (vol 3, p142, 147) that CUR?BASE should be written to > > last when updating any of the cursor regs even if the base value hasn't > > changed to trigger an update on the next VBLANK. > > > > I'm not sure whether my reading of that documentation is correct, > > though, because the cursor seemed to update just fine with the code in > > this patch. > > CUR?POS: > "This register can be loaded atomically (requires that the base address be > written) and is double buffered." > > As the code has been previously moving the cursor for many years without > updating CUR?BASE, I think we are safe. > -ickle
Cursors are working fine on my system with this patch, but I'll wait for a resolution on the regression when cursor at top/left.
pgpym9xUVzmN9.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
