On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 18:22:25 +0100, Daniel Vetter <dan...@ffwll.ch> wrote: > On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 08:50:30AM -0800, Eric Anholt wrote: > > On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 14:18:07 +0100, Daniel Vetter <daniel.vet...@ffwll.ch> > > wrote: > > > We have to do this manually. Somebody had a Great Idea. > > > > > > Signed-Off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vet...@ffwll.ch> > > > > People playing with this when not strictly required is scary to me. > > Manually swizzling was a world of hurt. I got to play with things like > > "when the management engine is enabled, it carves out the top N MB of > > one of the dimms, and the corresponding N MB of the other dimm doesn't > > get swizzled, and you lose". > > Looks like yet another patch series of mine that scares away people ... > > Would this patch be less scary when we have a test that slurps in the > entire ram to quickly diagnose such issues? We can then either revert this > or fix up the detection to not enable swizzling in such cases. > > Also the manually swizzling is a world of hurt argument is pretty void: Up > to very recent kernels we've advertised bit9 swizzling on snb+ without any > swizzling actually going on. So userspace clearly doesn't rely on this > anymore (the issue was caught by running the pread tests in i-g-t).
I was assuming you were working on this because you were planning on building something that *used* this swizzling. We removed all the userland because we never got it to actually work.
pgpaNFfNGDdW1.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
