On Wednesday 18 March 2015 03:18 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 01:42:58PM +0530, Deepak S wrote:
I guess your empty reply wasn't intentional?
-Daniel
Sorry, that was not intentional :)
On Friday 06 March 2015 08:36 PM, Chris Wilson wrote:
Reuse the same reclocking str
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 10:48:36AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 01:42:58PM +0530, Deepak S wrote:
> >
> >
>
> I guess your empty reply wasn't intentional?
I heard "This needs to be rebased against -nightly".
-Chris
--
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 01:42:58PM +0530, Deepak S wrote:
>
>
I guess your empty reply wasn't intentional?
-Daniel
> On Friday 06 March 2015 08:36 PM, Chris Wilson wrote:
> >Reuse the same reclocking strategy for Baytail as on its bigger brethren,
> >Sandybridge and Ivybridge. In particular, th
On Friday 06 March 2015 08:36 PM, Chris Wilson wrote:
Reuse the same reclocking strategy for Baytail as on its bigger brethren,
Sandybridge and Ivybridge. In particular, this makes the device quicker
to reclock (both up and down) though the tendency now is to downclock
more aggressively to comp
Reuse the same reclocking strategy for Baytail as on its bigger brethren,
Sandybridge and Ivybridge. In particular, this makes the device quicker
to reclock (both up and down) though the tendency now is to downclock
more aggressively to compensate for the RPS boosts.
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson
C
