Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: don't clobber the special upscaling lvds timings

On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 07:03:18PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 19:53:19 +0200, Daniel Vetter > wrote: > > This regression has been introduced in > > > > commit ca9bfa7eed20ea34e862804e62aae10eb159edbb > > Author: Daniel Vetter > > Date: Sat Jan 28 14:49:20 2012 +0100 > >

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: don't clobber the special upscaling lvds timings

On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 19:53:19 +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > This regression has been introduced in > > commit ca9bfa7eed20ea34e862804e62aae10eb159edbb > Author: Daniel Vetter > Date: Sat Jan 28 14:49:20 2012 +0100 > > drm/i915: fixup interlaced vertical timings confusion, part 1 > > Unfo

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: don't clobber the special upscaling lvds timings

This regression has been introduced in commit ca9bfa7eed20ea34e862804e62aae10eb159edbb Author: Daniel Vetter Date: Sat Jan 28 14:49:20 2012 +0100 drm/i915: fixup interlaced vertical timings confusion, part 1 Unfortunately that commit failed to take into account that the lvds code does som

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: don't clobber the special upscaling lvds timings

On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 19:24:34 +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > This regression has been introduced in > > commit ca9bfa7eed20ea34e862804e62aae10eb159edbb > Author: Daniel Vetter > Date: Sat Jan 28 14:49:20 2012 +0100 > > drm/i915: fixup interlaced vertical timings confusion, part 1 > > Unfo

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: don't clobber the special upscaling lvds timings

This regression has been introduced in commit ca9bfa7eed20ea34e862804e62aae10eb159edbb Author: Daniel Vetter Date: Sat Jan 28 14:49:20 2012 +0100 drm/i915: fixup interlaced vertical timings confusion, part 1 Unfortunately that commit failed to take into account that the lvds code does som

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: don't clobber the special upscaling lvds timings

On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 13:17, Daniel Vetter wrote: > This regression has been introduced in > > commit ca9bfa7eed20ea34e862804e62aae10eb159edbb > Author: Daniel Vetter > Date: Sat Jan 28 14:49:20 2012 +0100 > >drm/i915: fixup interlaced vertical timings confusion, part 1 > > Unfortunately

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: don't clobber the special upscaling lvds timings

On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 14:05, Chris Wilson wrote: > And most of that concern is due to the fact that the modesetting code > seems to have evolved ad-hoc with very few sanity checks and no > overarching design. > Yep, I have to agree on that :(. -- Eugeni Dodonov __

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: don't clobber the special upscaling lvds timings

On Sat, 14 Apr 2012 18:54:46 +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > To contrast with the state before these two patches: > - No longer splattered all over (some of it was deep down in the encoder > code, e.g. sdvo). > - No more stupid confusion about interlaced timings. Good things for sure. My biggest

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: don't clobber the special upscaling lvds timings

On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 05:43:49PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > On Sat, 14 Apr 2012 18:17:57 +0200, Daniel Vetter > wrote: > > This regression has been introduced in > > > > commit ca9bfa7eed20ea34e862804e62aae10eb159edbb > > Author: Daniel Vetter > > Date: Sat Jan 28 14:49:20 2012 +0100 > >

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: don't clobber the special upscaling lvds timings

On Sat, 14 Apr 2012 18:17:57 +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > This regression has been introduced in > > commit ca9bfa7eed20ea34e862804e62aae10eb159edbb > Author: Daniel Vetter > Date: Sat Jan 28 14:49:20 2012 +0100 > > drm/i915: fixup interlaced vertical timings confusion, part 1 > > Unfo

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: don't clobber the special upscaling lvds timings

This regression has been introduced in commit ca9bfa7eed20ea34e862804e62aae10eb159edbb Author: Daniel Vetter Date: Sat Jan 28 14:49:20 2012 +0100 drm/i915: fixup interlaced vertical timings confusion, part 1 Unfortunately that commit failed to take into account that the lvds code does som