On 05/18/2016 05:10 PM, Matthew Auld wrote:
> There's an updated version of this patch already on the ml [1], which
> I Cc'd you in on. I take it that your @tuebingen.mpg.de is in fact an
> old email address?
>
> [1] https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/86354/
>
Your patch looks good to me. I'd
There's an updated version of this patch already on the ml [1], which
I Cc'd you in on. I take it that your @tuebingen.mpg.de is in fact an
old email address?
[1] https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/86354/
On 05/09/2016 08:11 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Mon, May 09, 2016 at 08:16:07PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
>> On Mon, May 09, 2016 at 05:08:43PM +0100, Matthew Auld wrote:
>>> This patch aims to replace the roll-your-own seqlock implementation with
>>> full-blown seqlock'. We also remove the t
On Mon, May 09, 2016 at 05:08:43PM +0100, Matthew Auld wrote:
> This patch aims to replace the roll-your-own seqlock implementation with
> full-blown seqlock'. We also remove the timestamp ring-buffer in favour
> of single timestamp/count pair protected by a seqlock. In turn this
> means we can now
On Mon, May 09, 2016 at 08:16:07PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> On Mon, May 09, 2016 at 05:08:43PM +0100, Matthew Auld wrote:
> > This patch aims to replace the roll-your-own seqlock implementation with
> > full-blown seqlock'. We also remove the timestamp ring-buffer in favour
> > of single tim
This patch aims to replace the roll-your-own seqlock implementation with
full-blown seqlock'. We also remove the timestamp ring-buffer in favour
of single timestamp/count pair protected by a seqlock. In turn this
means we can now increment the vblank freely without the need for
clamping.
Cc: Danie
