Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 0/4] Attempt to re-enable FBC on gen3

2010-04-30 Thread Jesse Barnes
On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 10:23:58 +0200 Tobias Doerffel wrote: > Hi, > > Am Freitag, 23. April 2010, um 17:17:38 schrieb Adam Jackson: > > Disclaimer: I haven't tested this extensively, it just seems > > logical, and I really hate to see us lose FBC on gen3 since that's > > the family being used in l

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 0/4] Attempt to re-enable FBC on gen3

2010-04-29 Thread Tobias Doerffel
Hi, Am Freitag, 23. April 2010, um 17:17:38 schrieb Adam Jackson: > Disclaimer: I haven't tested this extensively, it just seems logical, and I > really hate to see us lose FBC on gen3 since that's the family being used > in low-wattage devices. Wider testing would be greatly appreciated. Works r

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 0/4] Attempt to re-enable FBC on gen3

2010-04-27 Thread Alexander Lam
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 11:17 AM, Adam Jackson wrote: > Disclaimer: I haven't tested this extensively, it just seems logical, and I > really hate to see us lose FBC on gen3 since that's the family being used in > low-wattage devices.  Wider testing would be greatly appreciated. Seems to work here

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 0/4] Attempt to re-enable FBC on gen3

2010-04-23 Thread Adam Jackson
Disclaimer: I haven't tested this extensively, it just seems logical, and I really hate to see us lose FBC on gen3 since that's the family being used in low-wattage devices. Wider testing would be greatly appreciated. The only thing I really don't like about this is how we hit every CRTC on resum