On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 9:31 PM, Ian Romanick wrote:
> On 08/14/2013 01:19 AM, Sedat Dilek wrote:
>>
>> AFAICS, there are more updates needed to be in sync with recent
>> kernel-drm.
>>
>> I fell over the misspelling when digging into an issue in Linux-next.
>> The spelling should be consistent in
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 9:31 PM, Ian Romanick wrote:
> On 08/14/2013 01:19 AM, Sedat Dilek wrote:
>>
>> AFAICS, there are more updates needed to be in sync with recent
>> kernel-drm.
>>
>> I fell over the misspelling when digging into an issue in Linux-next.
>> The spelling should be consistent in
On 08/14/2013 01:19 AM, Sedat Dilek wrote:
AFAICS, there are more updates needed to be in sync with recent kernel-drm.
I fell over the misspelling when digging into an issue in Linux-next.
The spelling should be consistent in kernel-drm, libdrm, intel-ddx, etc.
Here, I had a look especially at t
On 08/14/2013 01:19 AM, Sedat Dilek wrote:
> AFAICS, there are more updates needed to be in sync with recent kernel-drm.
>
> I fell over the misspelling when digging into an issue in Linux-next.
> The spelling should be consistent in kernel-drm, libdrm, intel-ddx, etc.
> Here, I had a look especial
AFAICS, there are more updates needed to be in sync with recent kernel-drm.
I fell over the misspelling when digging into an issue in Linux-next.
The spelling should be consistent in kernel-drm, libdrm, intel-ddx, etc.
Here, I had a look especially at the defined macros (defines).
Signed-off-by:
AFAICS, there are more updates needed to be in sync with recent kernel-drm.
I fell over the misspelling when digging into an issue in Linux-next.
The spelling should be consistent in kernel-drm, libdrm, intel-ddx, etc.
Here, I had a look especially at the defined macros (defines).
Signed-off-by: