On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 04:54:40PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 05:13:24PM +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 03:52:29PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 01:32:57PM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 12
On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 03:52:29PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 01:32:57PM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 12:18:19PM +, Brian Starkey wrote:
> > > The check to reject combinations of multiple rotation angles is overly
> > > restrictive and has th
On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 05:13:24PM +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 03:52:29PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 01:32:57PM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > > On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 12:18:19PM +, Brian Starkey wrote:
> > > > The check to reject combin
On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 12:18:19PM +, Brian Starkey wrote:
> The check to reject combinations of multiple rotation angles is overly
> restrictive and has the side-effect of also failing any rotation value
> which consists only of reflections.
>
> Fix this by relaxing the check to ignore values
On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 01:32:57PM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 12:18:19PM +, Brian Starkey wrote:
> > The check to reject combinations of multiple rotation angles is overly
> > restrictive and has the side-effect of also failing any rotation value
> > which consists onl
On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 04:12:07PM +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
>On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 12:18:19PM +, Brian Starkey wrote:
>> The check to reject combinations of multiple rotation angles is overly
>> restrictive and has the side-effect of also failing any rotation value
>> which consists only
On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 12:18:19PM +, Brian Starkey wrote:
> The check to reject combinations of multiple rotation angles is overly
> restrictive and has the side-effect of also failing any rotation value
> which consists only of reflections.
>
> Fix this by relaxing the check to ignore values
The check to reject combinations of multiple rotation angles is overly
restrictive and has the side-effect of also failing any rotation value
which consists only of reflections.
Fix this by relaxing the check to ignore values which contain no
rotation flags.
Fixes: 6e0c7c3358d4 ("drm/atomic: Reje
Hi Brian,
2016-12-07 Brian Starkey :
> The check to reject combinations of multiple rotation angles is overly
> restrictive and has the side-effect of also failing any rotation value
> which consists only of reflections.
>
> Fix this by relaxing the check to ignore values which contain no
> rota
