On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 01:45:45AM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> Hello Adam,
>
> Ping ?
>
> Daniel, would it help getting the driver in v3.11 if I resubmit it now with a
> get_modes operation that just returns 0 ?
Yeah, I guess that works, too.
-Daniel
>
> On Friday 14 June 2013 16:03:19 D
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 01:45:45AM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> Hello Adam,
>
> Ping ?
>
> Daniel, would it help getting the driver in v3.11 if I resubmit it now with a
> get_modes operation that just returns 0 ?
Yeah, I guess that works, too.
-Daniel
>
> On Friday 14 June 2013 16:03:19 D
Hello Adam,
Ping ?
Daniel, would it help getting the driver in v3.11 if I resubmit it now with a
get_modes operation that just returns 0 ?
On Friday 14 June 2013 16:03:19 Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 02:54:04AM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > On Friday 07 June 2013 10:50:55
Hello Adam,
Ping ?
Daniel, would it help getting the driver in v3.11 if I resubmit it now with a
get_modes operation that just returns 0 ?
On Friday 14 June 2013 16:03:19 Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 02:54:04AM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > On Friday 07 June 2013 10:50:55
On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 02:54:04AM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
>
> On Friday 07 June 2013 10:50:55 Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 07, 2013 at 09:44:45AM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > > On Wednesday 05 June 2013 10:55:05 Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 a
On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 02:54:04AM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
>
> On Friday 07 June 2013 10:50:55 Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 07, 2013 at 09:44:45AM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > > On Wednesday 05 June 2013 10:55:05 Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 a
Hi Daniel,
On Friday 07 June 2013 10:50:55 Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 07, 2013 at 09:44:45AM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > On Wednesday 05 June 2013 10:55:05 Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 03:51:53AM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday 04 June 2013 20
Hi Daniel,
On Friday 07 June 2013 10:50:55 Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 07, 2013 at 09:44:45AM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > On Wednesday 05 June 2013 10:55:05 Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 03:51:53AM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday 04 June 2013 20
On Fri, Jun 07, 2013 at 09:23:58AM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> On Thursday 06 June 2013 09:21:35 Alex Deucher wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 9:12 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 3:10 PM, Alex Deucher wrote:
> > >> To me at least, it doesn't make sense that an encoder c
On Fri, Jun 07, 2013 at 09:44:45AM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
>
> On Wednesday 05 June 2013 10:55:05 Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 03:51:53AM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 04 June 2013 20:36:20 Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 a
Hi Daniel,
On Wednesday 05 June 2013 10:55:05 Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 03:51:53AM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > On Tuesday 04 June 2013 20:36:20 Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 8:03 PM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday 04 June 2013 16:12:36 Da
On Thursday 06 June 2013 09:21:35 Alex Deucher wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 9:12 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 3:10 PM, Alex Deucher wrote:
> >> To me at least, it doesn't make sense that an encoder can clone
> >> itself. If an encoder is already in use, trying to clone it
On Fri, Jun 07, 2013 at 09:23:58AM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> On Thursday 06 June 2013 09:21:35 Alex Deucher wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 9:12 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 3:10 PM, Alex Deucher wrote:
> > >> To me at least, it doesn't make sense that an encoder c
On Fri, Jun 07, 2013 at 09:44:45AM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
>
> On Wednesday 05 June 2013 10:55:05 Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 03:51:53AM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 04 June 2013 20:36:20 Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 a
Hi Daniel,
On Wednesday 05 June 2013 10:55:05 Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 03:51:53AM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > On Tuesday 04 June 2013 20:36:20 Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 8:03 PM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday 04 June 2013 16:12:36 Da
On Thursday 06 June 2013 09:21:35 Alex Deucher wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 9:12 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 3:10 PM, Alex Deucher wrote:
> >> To me at least, it doesn't make sense that an encoder can clone
> >> itself. If an encoder is already in use, trying to clone it
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 3:10 PM, Alex Deucher wrote:
> To me at least, it doesn't make sense that an encoder can clone
> itself. If an encoder is already in use, trying to clone itself would
> only lead to confusion and possible bugs (make sure some code path
> doesn't try and reprogram the encode
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 9:12 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 3:10 PM, Alex Deucher wrote:
>> To me at least, it doesn't make sense that an encoder can clone
>> itself. If an encoder is already in use, trying to clone itself would
>> only lead to confusion and possible bugs (make
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 9:12 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 3:10 PM, Alex Deucher wrote:
>> To me at least, it doesn't make sense that an encoder can clone
>> itself. If an encoder is already in use, trying to clone itself would
>> only lead to confusion and possible bugs (make
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 3:10 PM, Alex Deucher wrote:
> To me at least, it doesn't make sense that an encoder can clone
> itself. If an encoder is already in use, trying to clone itself would
> only lead to confusion and possible bugs (make sure some code path
> doesn't try and reprogram the encode
On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 03:51:53AM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
>
> On Tuesday 04 June 2013 20:36:20 Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 8:03 PM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 04 June 2013 16:12:36 Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > >> On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 04:53:40AM
On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 03:51:53AM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
>
> On Tuesday 04 June 2013 20:36:20 Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 8:03 PM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 04 June 2013 16:12:36 Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > >> On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 04:53:40AM
On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 9:51 PM, Laurent Pinchart
wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
>
> On Tuesday 04 June 2013 20:36:20 Daniel Vetter wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 8:03 PM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
>> > On Tuesday 04 June 2013 16:12:36 Daniel Vetter wrote:
>> >> On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 04:53:40AM +0200, Laure
On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 9:51 PM, Laurent Pinchart
wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
>
> On Tuesday 04 June 2013 20:36:20 Daniel Vetter wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 8:03 PM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
>> > On Tuesday 04 June 2013 16:12:36 Daniel Vetter wrote:
>> >> On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 04:53:40AM +0200, Laure
On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 03:51:53AM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
>
> On Tuesday 04 June 2013 20:36:20 Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 8:03 PM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 04 June 2013 16:12:36 Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > >> On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 04:53:40AM
Hi Daniel,
On Tuesday 04 June 2013 20:36:20 Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 8:03 PM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > On Tuesday 04 June 2013 16:12:36 Daniel Vetter wrote:
> >> On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 04:53:40AM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >> Should we add that to crtc
On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 03:51:53AM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
>
> On Tuesday 04 June 2013 20:36:20 Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 8:03 PM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 04 June 2013 16:12:36 Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > >> On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 04:53:40AM
On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 8:03 PM, Laurent Pinchart
wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
>
> On Tuesday 04 June 2013 16:12:36 Daniel Vetter wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 04:53:40AM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
[snip]
>> Should we add that to crtc helpers, instead of the current "just try to
>> smash the old c
Hi Daniel,
On Tuesday 04 June 2013 16:12:36 Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 04:53:40AM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > The R-Car Display Unit (DU) DRM driver supports both superposition
> > processors and all eight planes in RGB and YUV formats with alpha
> > blending.
> >
> > O
Hi Daniel,
On Tuesday 04 June 2013 20:36:20 Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 8:03 PM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > On Tuesday 04 June 2013 16:12:36 Daniel Vetter wrote:
> >> On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 04:53:40AM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >> Should we add that to crtc
On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 04:53:40AM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> The R-Car Display Unit (DU) DRM driver supports both superposition
> processors and all eight planes in RGB and YUV formats with alpha
> blending.
>
> Only VGA and LVDS encoders and connectors are currently supported.
>
> Signed-
On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 8:03 PM, Laurent Pinchart
wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
>
> On Tuesday 04 June 2013 16:12:36 Daniel Vetter wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 04:53:40AM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
[snip]
>> Should we add that to crtc helpers, instead of the current "just try to
>> smash the old c
Hi Daniel,
On Tuesday 04 June 2013 16:12:36 Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 04:53:40AM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > The R-Car Display Unit (DU) DRM driver supports both superposition
> > processors and all eight planes in RGB and YUV formats with alpha
> > blending.
> >
> > O
The R-Car Display Unit (DU) DRM driver supports both superposition
processors and all eight planes in RGB and YUV formats with alpha
blending.
Only VGA and LVDS encoders and connectors are currently supported.
Signed-off-by: Laurent Pinchart
---
Hi Dave,
There has been no comment on v2, so I'd
34 matches
Mail list logo