On 26/09/16 09:09 PM, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 11:42:16 +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 10:57:50 +0200, Michel D4nzer wrote:
>>> On 23/09/16 10:06 PM, Takashi Iwai wrote:
radeon_cursor_move_unlock() contains a workaround for AVIVO chips that
are older th
On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 11:02:30 +0200,
Michel D4nzer wrote:
>
> On 26/09/16 09:09 PM, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> > On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 11:42:16 +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> >> On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 10:57:50 +0200, Michel D4nzer wrote:
> >>> On 23/09/16 10:06 PM, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> radeon_cursor_move
On 23/09/16 10:06 PM, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> radeon_cursor_move_unlock() contains a workaround for AVIVO chips that
> are older than DCE6 when the cursor ends on 128 pixel boundary. It
> decreases the position when the calculated end position is on 128
> pixel boundary. However, it hits also the c
On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 11:42:16 +0200,
Takashi Iwai wrote:
>
> On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 10:57:50 +0200,
> Michel D4nzer wrote:
> >
> > On 23/09/16 10:06 PM, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> > > radeon_cursor_move_unlock() contains a workaround for AVIVO chips that
> > > are older than DCE6 when the cursor ends on 1
On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 10:57:50 +0200,
Michel D4nzer wrote:
>
> On 23/09/16 10:06 PM, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> > radeon_cursor_move_unlock() contains a workaround for AVIVO chips that
> > are older than DCE6 when the cursor ends on 128 pixel boundary. It
> > decreases the position when the calculated e
radeon_cursor_move_unlock() contains a workaround for AVIVO chips that
are older than DCE6 when the cursor ends on 128 pixel boundary. It
decreases the position when the calculated end position is on 128
pixel boundary. However, it hits also the condition where x=-1 and
width=1 are passed, since
