Hi Ville,
I have addressed your review comments (including the policy regarding,
rejection of mode with aspect ratio, if no aspect ratio cap)
and other suggestions in the next patch-set. I will be sending the next
patch-set, shortly.
Regards,
Ankit
On 2/13/2018 10:15 PM, Ville Syrjälä wr
On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 09:53:53PM +0530, Nautiyal, Ankit K wrote:
> Hi Ville,
>
> Thanks yet again to look into this.
>
> I am still skeptical about rejecting the mode, if aspect ratio cap is
> not set.
> Perhaps I am not aware with the userspace expectations.
>
> Please find my response inlin
Hi Ville,
Thanks yet again to look into this.
I am still skeptical about rejecting the mode, if aspect ratio cap is
not set.
Perhaps I am not aware with the userspace expectations.
Please find my response inline:
On 2/13/2018 6:48 PM, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 10:21:15AM
On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 10:21:15AM +0530, Nautiyal, Ankit K wrote:
> Hi Ville,
>
> As per our last discussion, following points were discussed:
>
> 1. To suppress the aspect-ratio info from getblob ioctl to a user that
> does not support it:
>
> i. A new flag must be added to drm_blob_prop
Hi Ville,
As per our last discussion, following points were discussed:
1. To suppress the aspect-ratio info from getblob ioctl to a user that
does not support it:
i. A new flag must be added to drm_blob_property to mark if the
blob has mode data.
ii. This flag must be set when the
Hi Ville,
I still have some queries regarding the handling of aspect ratio flags
in getblob ioctl.
Please find below my responses inline.
On 2/1/2018 6:24 PM, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
On Thu, Feb 01, 2018 at 04:35:22PM +0530, Nautiyal, Ankit K wrote:
Hi Ville,
Appreciate your time and the sug
On Thu, Feb 01, 2018 at 04:35:22PM +0530, Nautiyal, Ankit K wrote:
> Hi Ville,
>
> Appreciate your time and the suggestions.
> Please find my response inline:
>
> On 1/31/2018 6:39 PM, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 12:04:52PM +0530, Nautiyal, Ankit K wrote:
> >>
> >> On 1/30/20
Hi Ville,
Appreciate your time and the suggestions.
Please find my response inline:
On 1/31/2018 6:39 PM, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 12:04:52PM +0530, Nautiyal, Ankit K wrote:
On 1/30/2018 12:23 AM, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 11:51:33AM +0530, Nautiyal, An
On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 12:04:52PM +0530, Nautiyal, Ankit K wrote:
>
>
> On 1/30/2018 12:23 AM, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 11:51:33AM +0530, Nautiyal, Ankit K wrote:
> >> From: Ankit Nautiyal
> >>
> >> If the user mode does not support aspect-ratio, and requests for
> >> a
On 1/30/2018 12:23 AM, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 11:51:33AM +0530, Nautiyal, Ankit K wrote:
From: Ankit Nautiyal
If the user mode does not support aspect-ratio, and requests for
a modeset, then the flag bits representing aspect ratio in the
given user-mode must be rejected
On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 11:51:33AM +0530, Nautiyal, Ankit K wrote:
> From: Ankit Nautiyal
>
> If the user mode does not support aspect-ratio, and requests for
> a modeset, then the flag bits representing aspect ratio in the
> given user-mode must be rejected.
> Similarly, while preparing a user-m
From: Ankit Nautiyal
If the user mode does not support aspect-ratio, and requests for
a modeset, then the flag bits representing aspect ratio in the
given user-mode must be rejected.
Similarly, while preparing a user-mode from kernel mode, the
aspect-ratio info must not be given, if aspect-ratio
12 matches
Mail list logo
