On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 09:48:01 +0100 Chris Wilson <ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk> wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 09:45:40 +0200, Daniel Vetter <daniel.vet...@ffwll.ch> > wrote: > > int > > i915_gem_init_ioctl(struct drm_device *dev, void *data, > > struct drm_file *file) > > @@ -155,7 +136,8 @@ i915_gem_init_ioctl(struct drm_device *dev, void *data, > > return -EINVAL; > > > > mutex_lock(&dev->struct_mutex); > > - i915_gem_do_init(dev, args->gtt_start, args->gtt_end, args->gtt_end); > > + i915_gem_init_global_gtt(dev, args->gtt_start, > > + args->gtt_end, args->gtt_end); > > mutex_unlock(&dev->struct_mutex); > > > > return 0; > > This raises the interesting question of ppgtt interacting with DRI1, a > never supported combination. Do we start making that expressly clear > with a few if (HAS_ALIASING_PPGTT()) return -ENODEV; or even if (gen >= > 6) return -ENODEV; ? And do you want to tackle partial GTT init and saving of the stolen framebuffer now that you've cleaned this up a little? -- Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
