1. 13 May, 2012 6 commits
  2. 11 May, 2012 11 commits
  3. 09 May, 2012 20 commits
  4. 08 May, 2012 1 commit
    • Daniel Vetter's avatar
      Merge remote-tracking branch 'airlied/drm-core-next' into drm-intel-next-queued · 5e13a0c5
      Daniel Vetter authored
      Backmerge of drm-next to resolve a few ugly conflicts and to get a few
      fixes from 3.4-rc6 (which drm-next has already merged). Note that this
      merge also restricts the stencil cache lra evict policy workaround to
      snb (as it should) - I had to frob the code anyway because the
      CM0_MASK_SHIFT define died in the masked bit cleanups.
      
      We need the backmerge to get Paulo Zanoni's infoframe regression fix
      for gm45 - further bugfixes from him touch the same area and would
      needlessly conflict.
      Signed-Off-by: default avatarDaniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
      5e13a0c5
  5. 07 May, 2012 2 commits
    • Dave Airlie's avatar
      Merge branch 'for-airlied' of git://people.freedesktop.org/~danvet/drm-intel into drm-core-next · 4f256e8a
      Dave Airlie authored
      Daniel prepared this branch with a back-merge as git was getting
      very confused about changes in intel_display.c
      4f256e8a
    • Daniel Vetter's avatar
      Merge tag 'v3.4-rc6' into drm-intel-next · dc257cf1
      Daniel Vetter authored
      Conflicts:
      	drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
      
      Ok, this is a fun story of git totally messing things up. There
      /shouldn't/ be any conflict in here, because the fixes in -rc6 do only
      touch functions that have not been changed in -next.
      
      The offending commits in drm-next are 14415745..1fa61106 which
      simply move a few functions from intel_display.c to intel_pm.c. The
      problem seems to be that git diff gets completely confused:
      
      $ git diff 14415745..1fa61106
      
      is a nice mess in intel_display.c, and the diff leaks into totally
      unrelated functions, whereas
      
      $git diff --minimal  14415745..1fa61106
      
      is exactly what we want.
      
      Unfortunately there seems to be no way to teach similar smarts to the
      merge diff and conflict generation code, because with the minimal diff
      there really shouldn't be any conflicts. For added hilarity, every
      time something in that area changes the + and - lines in the diff move
      around like crazy, again resulting in new conflicts. So I fear this
      mess will stay with us for a little longer (and might result in
      another backmerge down the road).
      Signed-Off-by: default avatarDaniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
      dc257cf1