On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 7:36 PM, Emil Velikov
wrote:
> On 26 May 2016 at 14:52, Jeff Mahoney wrote:
>> On 5/25/16 5:09 PM, Emil Velikov wrote:
>>> Hi Jeff,
>>>
>>> I'm thinking out loud so here are a few suggestions/ideas. Please
>>> don't take them too seriously although they do make sense from
On 26 May 2016 at 14:52, Jeff Mahoney wrote:
> On 5/25/16 5:09 PM, Emil Velikov wrote:
>> Hi Jeff,
>>
>> I'm thinking out loud so here are a few suggestions/ideas. Please
>> don't take them too seriously although they do make sense from this
>> end.
>
> Hi Emil -
>
> I'm not at all involved in amd
On 5/25/16 5:09 PM, Emil Velikov wrote:
> Hi Jeff,
>
> I'm thinking out loud so here are a few suggestions/ideas. Please
> don't take them too seriously although they do make sense from this
> end.
Hi Emil -
I'm not at all involved in amdgpu development. This patch came from me
fielding reports
Hi Jeff,
I'm thinking out loud so here are a few suggestions/ideas. Please
don't take them too seriously although they do make sense from this
end.
On 24 May 2016 at 18:47, Jeff Mahoney wrote:
> The DRM_AMD_ACP option doesn't have any dependencies and selects
> MFD_CORE, which results in MFD_COR
On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 1:47 PM, Jeff Mahoney wrote:
> The DRM_AMD_ACP option doesn't have any dependencies and selects
> MFD_CORE, which results in MFD_CORE=y. Since the code is only called
> from DRM_AMDGPU, it should depend on it. Adding the dependency results
> in MFD_CORE being selected as
The DRM_AMD_ACP option doesn't have any dependencies and selects
MFD_CORE, which results in MFD_CORE=y. Since the code is only called
from DRM_AMDGPU, it should depend on it. Adding the dependency results
in MFD_CORE being selected as a module again if amdgpu is also a module.
Signed-off-by: Jef
