On Sat, Sep 02, 2017 at 03:59:22PM -0300, Gustavo Padovan wrote:
> 2017-08-30 Daniel Vetter :
>
> > On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 02:17:52PM +0200, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
> > > By always keeping track of the last commit in plane_state, we know
> > > whether there is an active update on the plane or no
2017-08-30 Daniel Vetter :
> On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 02:17:52PM +0200, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
> > By always keeping track of the last commit in plane_state, we know
> > whether there is an active update on the plane or not. With that
> > information we can reject the fast update, and force the s
On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 02:53:43PM +0200, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
> Op 30-08-17 om 14:46 schreef Daniel Vetter:
> > On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 02:17:52PM +0200, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
> >> By always keeping track of the last commit in plane_state, we know
> >> whether there is an active update on t
Op 30-08-17 om 14:46 schreef Daniel Vetter:
> On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 02:17:52PM +0200, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
>> By always keeping track of the last commit in plane_state, we know
>> whether there is an active update on the plane or not. With that
>> information we can reject the fast update, an
On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 02:17:52PM +0200, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
> By always keeping track of the last commit in plane_state, we know
> whether there is an active update on the plane or not. With that
> information we can reject the fast update, and force the slowpath
> to be used as was original
By always keeping track of the last commit in plane_state, we know
whether there is an active update on the plane or not. With that
information we can reject the fast update, and force the slowpath
to be used as was originally intended.
Cc: Gustavo Padovan
Signed-off-by: Maarten Lankhorst
---
d
