On Mon, Dec 07, 2015 at 03:33:00PM +, Daniel Stone wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 4 December 2015 at 08:46, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > + /*
> > +* Reject event generation for when a CRTC is off and stays off. It
> > +* wouldn't be hard to implement this, but userspace has a track
>
On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 09:46:09AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> We want this for consistency with existing page_flip semantics.
>
> Since this spurred quite a discussion on IRC also document why we
> reject even generation when the pipe is off: It's not that it's hard
> to implement, but userspac
On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 09:46:09AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> We want this for consistency with existing page_flip semantics.
>
> Since this spurred quite a discussion on IRC also document why we
> reject even generation when the pipe is off: It's not that it's hard
> to implement, but userspac
Hi,
On 4 December 2015 at 08:46, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> + /*
> +* Reject event generation for when a CRTC is off and stays off. It
> +* wouldn't be hard to implement this, but userspace has a track
> record
> +* of happily burning through 100% cpu (or worse, crash)
We want this for consistency with existing page_flip semantics.
Since this spurred quite a discussion on IRC also document why we
reject even generation when the pipe is off: It's not that it's hard
to implement, but userspace has a track recording proofing that it's
way too easy to accidentally a
