On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 21:38:04 +0200, Daniel Vetter <dan...@ffwll.ch> wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 03:41:15PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > A few of the earlier registers where enlarged and so the Base Data of
> > Stolem Memory Register (BDSM) was pushed to 0xb0.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk>
> > ---
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_stolen.c | 9 ++++++++-
> > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_stolen.c
> > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_stolen.c
> > index a01ff74..a528e4a 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_stolen.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_stolen.c
> > @@ -63,7 +63,11 @@ static unsigned long i915_stolen_to_physical(struct
> > drm_device *dev)
> > * its value of TOLUD.
> > */
> > base = 0;
> > - if (INTEL_INFO(dev)->gen > 3 || IS_G33(dev)) {
> > + if (INTEL_INFO(dev)->gen >= 6) {
> > + /* Read Base Data of Stolen Memory Register (BDSM) directly */
> > + pci_read_config_dword(pdev, 0xB0, &base);
>
> Wishlist (i.e. feel free to ignore): Can we have #defines instead of magic
> numbers here, please?
Shrug, I'm not sure in this instance. Each chipset generation seems to
move it about and give it a different name and rationale, so sticking with
a verbose comment made sense.
-Chris
--
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
