On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 07:25:37AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 10:21:44AM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> > I am not convinced this is the correct solution. At least the way we
> > used this interface, it isn't meant to ever fail. I also didn't look
> > into exactly why we de
On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 10:21:44AM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> I am not convinced this is the correct solution. At least the way we
> used this interface, it isn't meant to ever fail. I also didn't look
> into exactly why we depend an ENOSPC return. That sounds fragile to me,
> especially for a p
On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 10:13:13PM -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Apr 2014 23:25:20 +0200
> Daniel Vetter wrote:
>
> > Jesse's BIOS fb reconstruction code actually relies on the -ENOSPC
> > return value to detect overlapping framebuffers (which the bios uses
> > always when lighting up m
Jesse's BIOS fb reconstruction code actually relies on the -ENOSPC
return value to detect overlapping framebuffers (which the bios uses
always when lighting up more than one screen). All this fanciness
happens in intel_alloc_plane_obj in intel_display.c.
Since no one else uses this we can savely r
On Mon, 7 Apr 2014 23:25:20 +0200
Daniel Vetter wrote:
> Jesse's BIOS fb reconstruction code actually relies on the -ENOSPC
> return value to detect overlapping framebuffers (which the bios uses
> always when lighting up more than one screen). All this fanciness
> happens in intel_alloc_plane_ob
