On Sat, 2010-08-28 at 22:13 +0200, Paul Menzel wrote:
Am Montag, den 23.08.2010, 10:19 -0400 schrieb Adam Jackson:
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_modes.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_modes.c index f1f473e..949326d 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_modes.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_modes.c @@ -251,7 +251,10 @@ struct drm_display_mode *drm_cvt_mode(struct drm_device *dev, int hdisplay, drm_mode->htotal = drm_mode->hdisplay + CVT_RB_H_BLANK; /* Fill in HSync values */ drm_mode->hsync_end = drm_mode->hdisplay + CVT_RB_H_BLANK / 2;
drm_mode->hsync_start = drm_mode->hsync_end = CVT_RB_H_SYNC;
drm_mode->hsync_start = drm_mode->hsync_end - CVT_RB_H_SYNC;
/* Fill in VSync values */
drm_mode->vsync_start = drm_mode->vdisplay + CVT_RB_VFPORCH;
} /* 15/13. Find pixel clock frequency (kHz for xf86) */ drm_mode->clock = drm_mode->htotal * HV_FACTOR * 1000 / hperiod;drm_mode->vsync_end = drm_mode->vsync_start + vsync;
Do you know if that was an regression in libdrm
Well it's a change to a kernel source file, so, no.
and if that patch might also fix #26294 [1]? DebPkg:libdrm2 was upgraded during that time from 2.4.14 too.
It might.
- ajax