On Wed, 18 Nov 2015, David Airlie wrote:
> I'm assuming I'll get a pull request from Jani by the end of the week,
> and I'll pass it on to you as per normal, but it might be good if he
> could accelerate that.
Done. http://mid.gmane.org/87vb8yt4a2.fsf at intel.com
BR,
Jani.
--
Jani Nikula, In
quot;dri-devel" , "Linux Kernel Mailing List"
>
> Sent: Thursday, 19 November, 2015 2:18:50 AM
> Subject: Re: Regression on Chromebook Pixel 2015 due to i915 fastboot
> always-on
>
> On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 12:29 AM, Jani Nikula
> wrote:
> > On Tue, 17
On Tue, 17 Nov 2015, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 7:18 PM, Linus Torvalds
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Olof Johansson wrote:
>>>
>>> The problem as I see it is that it's unknown how many machines depends
>>> on previous behavior. If it's only Pixel 2015 then I t
On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 12:29 AM, Jani Nikula
wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Nov 2015, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>>
>> Imo revert. With all the QA awol fail we've suffered the past few
>> months we've become a bit too lax imo with reverting fast, and the
>> point of the split-out commit was to allow exactly that
On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 7:18 PM, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Olof Johansson wrote:
>>
>> The problem as I see it is that it's unknown how many machines depends
>> on previous behavior. If it's only Pixel 2015 then I think a whitelist
>> would be just fine.
>
> Conside
