On 5 September 2016 at 14:44, Emil Velikov wrote:
> On 5 September 2016 at 10:45, Tomeu Vizoso
> wrote:
>> On 2 September 2016 at 17:18, Emil Velikov
>> wrote:
>>> Hi Tomeu,
>>>
>>> IMHO it would be better to split out the refactoring into preparatory
>>> patch. It brings a minor change which
On 5 September 2016 at 10:45, Tomeu Vizoso
wrote:
> On 2 September 2016 at 17:18, Emil Velikov
> wrote:
>> Hi Tomeu,
>>
>> IMHO it would be better to split out the refactoring into preparatory
>> patch. It brings a minor change which (not 100% sure on that) should
>> not cause issues but is wor
On 2 September 2016 at 17:18, Emil Velikov wrote:
> Hi Tomeu,
>
> IMHO it would be better to split out the refactoring into preparatory
> patch. It brings a minor change which (not 100% sure on that) should
> not cause issues but is worth pointing out.
I think at this point it would make sense to
Hi Tomeu,
IMHO it would be better to split out the refactoring into preparatory
patch. It brings a minor change which (not 100% sure on that) should
not cause issues but is worth pointing out.
On 5 August 2016 at 11:45, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
> +static int do_set_crc_source(struct drm_device *dev,
The core provides now an ABI to userspace for generation of frame CRCs,
so implement the ->set_crc_source() callback and reuse as much code as
possible with the previous ABI implementation.
v2:
- Leave the legacy implementation in place as the ABI implementation
in the core is incompatib
