On 01/14, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
> Op 13-01-2019 om 21:23 schreef Rodrigo Siqueira:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I resend this patch for CI via “intel-...@lists.freedesktop.org” as
> > Daniel suggested, and I got a feedback that reported an issue as can be
> > seen here:
> >
> >https://patchwork.freedeskt
Op 13-01-2019 om 21:23 schreef Rodrigo Siqueira:
> Hi,
>
> I resend this patch for CI via “intel-...@lists.freedesktop.org” as
> Daniel suggested, and I got a feedback that reported an issue as can be
> seen here:
>
>https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/51147/
>
> After a careful analysis o
Hi,
I resend this patch for CI via “intel-...@lists.freedesktop.org” as
Daniel suggested, and I got a feedback that reported an issue as can be
seen here:
https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/51147/
After a careful analysis of what happened, I concluded that the problem
is related to the
On 10/17, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 2:43 PM Rodrigo Siqueira
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > First of all, thanks to all for the reviewers and feedbacks.
> >
> > On 10/16, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 02:05:29PM -0300, Rodrigo Siqueira wrote:
> > > > For his
On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 2:43 PM Rodrigo Siqueira
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> First of all, thanks to all for the reviewers and feedbacks.
>
> On 10/16, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 02:05:29PM -0300, Rodrigo Siqueira wrote:
> > > For historical reason, the function drm_wait_vblank_ioctl
Hi,
First of all, thanks to all for the reviewers and feedbacks.
On 10/16, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 02:05:29PM -0300, Rodrigo Siqueira wrote:
> > For historical reason, the function drm_wait_vblank_ioctl always return
> > -EINVAL if something gets wrong. This scenario limits
On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 7:28 PM Ville Syrjälä
wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 06:38:31PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 03:36:20PM +0200, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
> > > Op 15-10-18 om 19:05 schreef Rodrigo Siqueira:
> > > > For historical reason, the function drm_wait_v
On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 06:38:31PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 03:36:20PM +0200, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
> > Op 15-10-18 om 19:05 schreef Rodrigo Siqueira:
> > > For historical reason, the function drm_wait_vblank_ioctl always return
> > > -EINVAL if something gets wrong.
On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 03:36:20PM +0200, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
> Op 15-10-18 om 19:05 schreef Rodrigo Siqueira:
> > For historical reason, the function drm_wait_vblank_ioctl always return
> > -EINVAL if something gets wrong. This scenario limits the flexibility
> > for the userspace make detail
Op 15-10-18 om 19:05 schreef Rodrigo Siqueira:
> For historical reason, the function drm_wait_vblank_ioctl always return
> -EINVAL if something gets wrong. This scenario limits the flexibility
> for the userspace make detailed verification of the problem and take
> some action. In particular, the v
On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 02:05:29PM -0300, Rodrigo Siqueira wrote:
> For historical reason, the function drm_wait_vblank_ioctl always return
> -EINVAL if something gets wrong. This scenario limits the flexibility
> for the userspace make detailed verification of the problem and take
> some action. I
For historical reason, the function drm_wait_vblank_ioctl always return
-EINVAL if something gets wrong. This scenario limits the flexibility
for the userspace make detailed verification of the problem and take
some action. In particular, the validation of “if (!dev->irq_enabled)”
in the drm_wait_v
12 matches
Mail list logo
