[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 01/13] drm/i915/fbc: Disable fbc by default on all glk+
Sasha Levin
sashal at kernel.org
Thu Nov 28 14:23:39 UTC 2019
Hi,
[This is an automated email]
This commit has been processed because it contains a -stable tag.
The stable tag indicates that it's relevant for the following trees: all
The bot has tested the following trees: v5.3.13, v4.19.86, v4.14.156, v4.9.203, v4.4.203.
v5.3.13: Build OK!
v4.19.86: Failed to apply! Possible dependencies:
Unable to calculate
v4.14.156: Failed to apply! Possible dependencies:
Unable to calculate
v4.9.203: Failed to apply! Possible dependencies:
1d25724b41fa ("drm/i915/fbc: disable framebuffer compression on GeminiLake")
fd7d6c5c8f3e ("drm/i915: enable FBC on gen9+ too")
v4.4.203: Failed to apply! Possible dependencies:
0e631adc1aef ("drm/i915: introduce is_active/activate/deactivate to the FBC terminology")
128d735606d4 ("drm/i915: use a single intel_fbc_work struct")
1d25724b41fa ("drm/i915/fbc: disable framebuffer compression on GeminiLake")
30c58d5896e5 ("drm/i915: extract crtc_is_valid() on the FBC code")
36dbc4d76918 ("drm/i915/fbc: FBC causes display flicker when VT-d is enabled on Skylake")
45b32a291978 ("drm/i915: use struct intel_crtc *crtc at __intel_fbc_update()")
571050226c5d ("drm/i915: extract fbc_on_pipe_a_only()")
754d113304aa ("drm/i915: pass the crtc as an argument to intel_fbc_update()")
793af070a716 ("drm/i915: remove newline from a no_fbc_reason message")
80788a0fbbdf ("drm/i915/fbc: sanitize i915.enable_fbc during FBC init")
913a3a6acae3 ("drm/i915/fbc: don't print no_fbc_reason to dmesg")
a4dedd5a14a8 ("drm/i915: remove unnecessary check for crtc->primary->fb")
ab34a7e8b55a ("drm/i915/fbc: replace frequent dev_priv->fbc.x with fbc->x")
bf6189c6f062 ("drm/i915: change no_fbc_reason from enum to string")
c68ae339e710 ("drm/i915: don't disable_fbc() if FBC is already disabled")
e9c5fd26ac38 ("drm/i915: set dev_priv->fbc.crtc before scheduling the enable work")
NOTE: The patch will not be queued to stable trees until it is upstream.
How should we proceed with this patch?
--
Thanks,
Sasha
More information about the Intel-gfx
mailing list