On Fri, 2016-06-24 at 11:59 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 02:14:12PM +0100, Steven Newbury wrote:
> > On Thu, 2016-06-23 at 15:59 +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> > > On Thu, 23 Jun 2016, Steven Newbury
> > > wrote:
> > > > I'm seein
On Thu, 2016-06-23 at 15:59 +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Jun 2016, Steven Newbury wrote:
> > [ Unknown signature status ]
> > On Sun, 2016-06-19 at 14:53 -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2016-06-17 at 16:06 -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
> > &
On Sun, 2016-06-19 at 14:53 -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Fri, 2016-06-17 at 16:06 -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
> > On Fri, 2016-06-17 at 16:34 +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> > > On Fri, 17 Jun 2016, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 03:42:12PM -0700, James Bottomley
> > > >
On Wed, 2015-09-23 at 23:41 +0200, Lukas Wunner wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 08:37:48PM +0000, Steven Newbury wrote:
> > I can't figure out how to get a pointer to the radeon_device struct
> > for a specific card, or the parent drm_device from an exte
I've been reading up on the device model and studying kernel sources for the
last couple of days, but I can't figure out how to get a pointer to the
radeon_device struct for a specific card, or the parent drm_device from an
external device driver.
I imagine I somehow need to take a reference to
the
radeon_device pointer but it makes more sense to me to just add a
reference count to the drm device as an external module.
> Regards,
> Christian.
>
> On 21.09.2015 13:33, Steven Newbury wrote:
> > I have a mostly* headless server containing a Radeon discrete GPU.
>
I have a mostly* headless server containing a Radeon discrete GPU. Â It
occured to me that having a GiB or two of high speed memory sitting
unused is pretty wasteful. Not an original thought; indeed there's a
Gentoo wiki which describes how to map the memory as a mtd device:
Â
http://www.gentoo-wi
On Thu Jul 9 17:02:12 2015 GMT+0100, Steven Newbury wrote:
> On Thu Jul 9 16:04:35 2015 GMT+0100, Alex Deucher wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 2:58 AM, Steven Newbury
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu Jul 9 03:32:40 2015 GMT+0100, Michel Dänzer
On Thu Jul 9 17:02:12 2015 GMT+0100, Steven Newbury wrote:
> On Thu Jul 9 16:04:35 2015 GMT+0100, Alex Deucher wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 2:58 AM, Steven Newbury
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu Jul 9 03:32:40 2015 GMT+0100, Michel Dänzer
On Thu Jul 9 16:04:35 2015 GMT+0100, Alex Deucher wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 2:58 AM, Steven Newbury
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Thu Jul 9 03:32:40 2015 GMT+0100, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> >> On 09.07.2015 06:01, Steven Newbury wrote:
> >> > On Wed, 20
On Thu Jul 9 03:32:40 2015 GMT+0100, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> On 09.07.2015 06:01, Steven Newbury wrote:
> > On Wed, 2015-07-08 at 21:56 +0100, Steven Newbury wrote:
> >> On Tue, 2015-07-07 at 09:18 +0300, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 22:50:30 +01
On Wed, 2015-07-08 at 21:56 +0100, Steven Newbury wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-07-07 at 09:18 +0300, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> > On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 22:50:30 +0100
> > Steven Newbury wrote:
> >
> > > Would gles1 be sufficient to run a Wayland compositor, I'm
> > &
On Tue, 2015-07-07 at 09:18 +0300, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 22:50:30 +0100
> Steven Newbury wrote:
>
> > Would gles1 be sufficient to run a Wayland compositor, I'm
> > guessing probably not..?
>
> If you can find a Wayland compositor that
On Wed, 2015-07-08 at 17:10 +0100, Emil Velikov wrote:
> On 8 July 2015 at 14:55, Alex Deucher wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Steven Newbury <
> > steve at snewbury.org.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed Jul 8 14:20:28 2015 GMT+0100,
On Wed Jul 8 14:20:28 2015 GMT+0100, Alex Deucher wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 8:58 AM, Steven Newbury
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Tue Jul 7 15:12:28 2015 GMT+0100, Alex Deucher wrote:
> >> On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 9:46 AM, Steven Newbury
> >> wrote
On Tue Jul 7 15:12:28 2015 GMT+0100, Alex Deucher wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 9:46 AM, Steven Newbury
> wrote:
> >
> > I've tried an xserver-1.16, and ddx, libdrm without LTO and with
> > gcc4.9. Exactly the same thing. I wondered whether the unused i810
On Tue, 2015-07-07 at 10:12 -0400, Alex Deucher wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 9:46 AM, Steven Newbury > wrote:
> >
> > I've tried an xserver-1.16, and ddx, libdrm without LTO and with
> > gcc4.9. Exactly the same thing. I wondered whether the unused
> >
On Mon, 2015-07-06 at 23:26 +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 06, 2015 at 09:06:28PM +0100, Steven Newbury wrote:
> > On Mon, 2015-07-06 at 15:42 -0400, Alex Deucher wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 2:40 PM, Steven Newbury <
> > > steve at snewbury.org.uk
On Mon Jul 6 22:26:25 2015 GMT+0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 06, 2015 at 09:06:28PM +0100, Steven Newbury wrote:
> > On Mon, 2015-07-06 at 15:42 -0400, Alex Deucher wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 2:40 PM, Steven Newbury > > > wrote:
> > >
On Mon, 2015-07-06 at 23:26 +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 06, 2015 at 09:06:28PM +0100, Steven Newbury wrote:
> > On Mon, 2015-07-06 at 15:42 -0400, Alex Deucher wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 2:40 PM, Steven Newbury <
> > > steve at snewbury.org.uk
On Mon, 2015-07-06 at 15:42 -0400, Alex Deucher wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 2:40 PM, Steven Newbury > wrote:
> > On Mon, 2015-07-06 at 12:25 -0400, Alex Deucher wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 9:39 AM, Steven Newbury <
> > > steve at snewbury.org.uk
> &
On Mon, 2015-07-06 at 12:25 -0400, Alex Deucher wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 9:39 AM, Steven Newbury > wrote:
> > Hi,
> > I've been trying to get DRM/KMS working with the current graphics
> > stack (xf86-video-ati 7.5, xserver-1.17) on a R200 series card. I
>
Hi,
I've been trying to get DRM/KMS working with the current graphics
stack (xf86-video-ati 7.5, xserver-1.17) on a R200 series card. I
assumed this should be working since KMS was implemented for it a
while back, and it has been working with xf86-video-ati-6.x.
Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to
On Wed, 2014-10-08 at 09:17 +0800, Mark yao wrote:
> Hi Steven
> I'm glad to see you to discuss about rk29xx.
>
> On 2014?10?08? 06:26, Steven Newbury wrote:
> > I've just been discussing how this relates to rk29xx on #etnaviv.
> > I
> > looked thr
I've just been discussing how this relates to rk29xx on #etnaviv. I
looked through the patch and it's good to see it's not limited to
supporting Mali GPUs. I see no reason this wouldn't be compatible
with etna_viv for rk29xx (or future Rockchip designs with alternative
GPUs) as long as the re
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I have two DRM devices, i965 onboard, and a Radeon in a docking station.
Both devices are enabled in my Xorg server layout Screen0 is the i965,
and Screen1, the Radeon.
When I run vdpauinfo or try using mplayer -vo vdpau on the Radeon, I
get the erro
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I have two DRM devices, i965 onboard, and a Radeon in a docking station.
Both devices are enabled in my Xorg server layout Screen0 is the i965,
and Screen1, the Radeon.
When I run vdpauinfo or try using mplayer -vo vdpau on the Radeon, I
get the erro
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 18/05/12 10:08, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 12:45 AM, Yinghai Lu
> wrote:
>> On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 9:36 AM, Yinghai Lu
>> wrote:
>>> On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 5:34 AM, Steven Newbury
>>> wrote
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 18/05/12 10:08, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 12:45 AM, Yinghai Lu
> wrote:
>> On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 9:36 AM, Yinghai Lu
>> wrote:
>>> On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 5:34 AM, Steven Newbury
>>> wrote
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 17/05/12 13:27, Steven Newbury wrote:
> On 15/05/12 18:42, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>> On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 2:54 AM, Steven Newbury
>> wrote:
>
>>> I'll get re-synced back up, and if they're still relevant give
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 15/05/12 18:42, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 2:54 AM, Steven Newbury
> wrote:
>
>> I'll get re-synced back up, and if they're still relevant give
>> the patches a test. Is there an updated branch
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 17/05/12 13:27, Steven Newbury wrote:
> On 15/05/12 18:42, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>> On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 2:54 AM, Steven Newbury
>> wrote:
>
>>> I'll get re-synced back up, and if they're still relevant give
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 15/05/12 18:42, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 2:54 AM, Steven Newbury
> wrote:
>
>> I'll get re-synced back up, and if they're still relevant give
>> the patches a test. Is there an updated branch
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 16/04/12 18:29, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 11:54 PM, Yinghai Lu
> wrote:
>> On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 1:06 PM, Yinghai Lu
>> wrote:
3. use pci_bus_allocate_resource in drm/radeon driver ...
===> but that could fail. so cou
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 16/04/12 18:29, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 11:54 PM, Yinghai Lu
> wrote:
>> On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 1:06 PM, Yinghai Lu
>> wrote:
3. use pci_bus_allocate_resource in drm/radeon driver ...
===> but that could fail. so cou
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 16/04/12 18:29, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 11:54 PM, Yinghai Lu
> wrote:
>> On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 1:06 PM, Yinghai Lu
>> wrote:
3. use pci_bus_allocate_resource in drm/radeon driver ...
===> but that could fail. so cou
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 16/04/12 18:29, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 11:54 PM, Yinghai Lu
> wrote:
>> On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 1:06 PM, Yinghai Lu
>> wrote:
3. use pci_bus_allocate_resource in drm/radeon driver ...
===> but that could fail. so cou
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 16/04/12 07:54, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 1:06 PM, Yinghai Lu
> wrote:
>>> 3. use pci_bus_allocate_resource in drm/radeon driver ... ===>
>>> but that could fail. so could hack it like a. disable bar 0x10
>>> and steal BAR address
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 16/04/12 07:54, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 1:06 PM, Yinghai Lu
> wrote:
>>> 3. use pci_bus_allocate_resource in drm/radeon driver ... ===>
>>> but that could fail. so could hack it like a. disable bar 0x10
>>> and steal BAR address
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 15/04/12 18:25, Steven Newbury wrote:
> On 15/04/12 12:37, Steven Newbury wrote:
>> On 15/04/12 11:20, Steven Newbury wrote:
>>> On 14/04/12 21:48, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>>> On Sat, A
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 15/04/12 12:37, Steven Newbury wrote:
> On 15/04/12 11:20, Steven Newbury wrote:
>> On 14/04/12 21:48, Yinghai Lu wrote:
[snip]
>>> On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 12:21 PM, Steven Newbury
>>>>>
>>>>>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 15/04/12 11:20, Steven Newbury wrote:
> On 14/04/12 21:48, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>> On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 12:21 PM, Steven Newbury
>> wrote:
>>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1
>>>
>>> On 14/
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 15/04/12 04:21, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 10:37 AM, Steven Newbury
> wrote:
>> I've created a new quirk utilising an extra PCI resource flag to
>> force reallocation of the resource. It's the fi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 14/04/12 21:48, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 12:21 PM, Steven Newbury
> wrote:
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On 14/04/12 20:08, Steven Newbury wrote:
>>> On 14/04/12 19:42,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 14/04/12 21:48, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 12:21 PM, Steven Newbury
> wrote:
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On 14/04/12 20:08, Steven Newbury wrote:
>>> On 14/04/12 19:42,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 15/04/12 04:21, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 10:37 AM, Steven Newbury
> wrote:
>> I've created a new quirk utilising an extra PCI resource flag to
>> force reallocation of the resource. It's the fi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 15/04/12 18:25, Steven Newbury wrote:
> On 15/04/12 12:37, Steven Newbury wrote:
>> On 15/04/12 11:20, Steven Newbury wrote:
>>> On 14/04/12 21:48, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>>> On Sat, A
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 15/04/12 12:37, Steven Newbury wrote:
> On 15/04/12 11:20, Steven Newbury wrote:
>> On 14/04/12 21:48, Yinghai Lu wrote:
[snip]
>>> On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 12:21 PM, Steven Newbury
>>>>>
>>>>>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 15/04/12 11:20, Steven Newbury wrote:
> On 14/04/12 21:48, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>> On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 12:21 PM, Steven Newbury
>> wrote:
>>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1
>>>
>>> On 14/
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 15/04/12 04:21, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 10:37 AM, Steven Newbury
> wrote:
>> I've created a new quirk utilising an extra PCI resource flag to
>> force reallocation of the resource. It's the fi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 14/04/12 21:48, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 12:21 PM, Steven Newbury
> wrote:
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On 14/04/12 20:08, Steven Newbury wrote:
>>> On 14/04/12 19:42,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 14/04/12 21:48, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 12:21 PM, Steven Newbury
> wrote:
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On 14/04/12 20:08, Steven Newbury wrote:
>>> On 14/04/12 19:42,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 15/04/12 04:21, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 10:37 AM, Steven Newbury
> wrote:
>> I've created a new quirk utilising an extra PCI resource flag to
>> force reallocation of the resource. It's the fi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 14/04/12 20:08, Steven Newbury wrote:
> On 14/04/12 19:42, Steven Newbury wrote:
>> On 14/04/12 19:05, Steven Newbury wrote:
>>> On 14/04/12 18:37, Steven Newbury wrote:
>>>> On 12/04/12 17:40, Steven Newbury wrote:
&g
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 14/04/12 19:42, Steven Newbury wrote:
> On 14/04/12 19:05, Steven Newbury wrote:
>> On 14/04/12 18:37, Steven Newbury wrote:
>>> On 12/04/12 17:40, Steven Newbury wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 12 Apr 2012, 17:07:33 BST, Yingha
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 14/04/12 19:05, Steven Newbury wrote:
> On 14/04/12 18:37, Steven Newbury wrote:
>> On 12/04/12 17:40, Steven Newbury wrote:
>>> On Thu, 12 Apr 2012, 17:07:33 BST, Yinghai Lu
>>> wrote:
>
>>>> On Th
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 14/04/12 18:37, Steven Newbury wrote:
> On 12/04/12 17:40, Steven Newbury wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 Apr 2012, 17:07:33 BST, Yinghai Lu
>> wrote:
>
>>> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 4:22 AM, Steven Newbury
>>> wrote:
&g
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/04/12 17:40, Steven Newbury wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Apr 2012, 17:07:33 BST, Yinghai Lu
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 4:22 AM, Steven Newbury
>> wrote:
>>> Thanks, that fixed it! :) I had a similar patch I&#x
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 14/04/12 20:08, Steven Newbury wrote:
> On 14/04/12 19:42, Steven Newbury wrote:
>> On 14/04/12 19:05, Steven Newbury wrote:
>>> On 14/04/12 18:37, Steven Newbury wrote:
>>>> On 12/04/12 17:40, Steven Newbury wrote:
&g
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 14/04/12 19:42, Steven Newbury wrote:
> On 14/04/12 19:05, Steven Newbury wrote:
>> On 14/04/12 18:37, Steven Newbury wrote:
>>> On 12/04/12 17:40, Steven Newbury wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 12 Apr 2012, 17:07:33 BST, Yingha
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 14/04/12 19:05, Steven Newbury wrote:
> On 14/04/12 18:37, Steven Newbury wrote:
>> On 12/04/12 17:40, Steven Newbury wrote:
>>> On Thu, 12 Apr 2012, 17:07:33 BST, Yinghai Lu
>>> wrote:
>
>>>> On Th
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 14/04/12 18:37, Steven Newbury wrote:
> On 12/04/12 17:40, Steven Newbury wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 Apr 2012, 17:07:33 BST, Yinghai Lu
>> wrote:
>
>>> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 4:22 AM, Steven Newbury
>>> wrote:
&g
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/04/12 17:40, Steven Newbury wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Apr 2012, 17:07:33 BST, Yinghai Lu
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 4:22 AM, Steven Newbury
>> wrote:
>>> Thanks, that fixed it! :) I had a similar patch I&#x
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 13/04/12 19:12, Steven Newbury wrote:
> On 13/04/12 18:38, Steven Newbury wrote:
>> On 13/04/12 17:17, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>>>>> Looks like either a btrfs regression or bad interaction
>>>>> with for-pci-res-a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 13/04/12 18:38, Steven Newbury wrote:
> On 13/04/12 17:17, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>>>> Looks like either a btrfs regression or bad interaction with
>>>> for-pci-res-alloc. Oops attached.
>>> Just hit the same oops o
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 13/04/12 17:17, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>>> Looks like either a btrfs regression or bad interaction with
>>> for-pci-res-alloc. Oops attached.
>> Just hit the same oops on the rc1+for-pci-res-alloc kernel I
>> tried earlier so it's not definitely someth
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 13/04/12 17:17, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>>> Looks like either a btrfs regression or bad interaction with
>>> for-pci-res-alloc. Oops attached.
>> Just hit the same oops on the rc1+for-pci-res-alloc kernel I
>> tried earlier so it's not definitely someth
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 13/04/12 16:23, Steven Newbury wrote:
> On 13/04/12 15:19, Steven Newbury wrote:
>> On 13/04/12 15:13, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>>> On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 03:08:36PM +0100, Steven Newbury
>>> wrote:
>>>> -B
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 13/04/12 15:19, Steven Newbury wrote:
> On 13/04/12 15:13, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 03:08:36PM +0100, Steven Newbury wrote:
>>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1
>>>
>>> On
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 13/04/12 15:13, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 03:08:36PM +0100, Steven Newbury wrote:
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On 13/04/12 14:52, Steven Newbury wrote:
>>> On Fri, 13
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 13/04/12 14:52, Steven Newbury wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Apr 2012, 14:26:19 BST, Steven Newbury
> wrote:
>
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On 13/04/12 13:49, Steven Newbury wrote:
>>> On
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 13/04/12 19:12, Steven Newbury wrote:
> On 13/04/12 18:38, Steven Newbury wrote:
>> On 13/04/12 17:17, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>>>>> Looks like either a btrfs regression or bad interaction
>>>>> with for-pci-res-a
On Fri, 13 Apr 2012, 14:26:19 BST, Steven Newbury
wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 13/04/12 13:49, Steven Newbury wrote:
> > On 13/04/12 12:58, Steven Newbury wrote:
> >
> > > > It's not stable, crashes soon after G
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 13/04/12 13:49, Steven Newbury wrote:
> On 13/04/12 12:58, Steven Newbury wrote:
>
>>> It's not stable, crashes soon after GMA comes up. (Could be
>>> unrelated breakage in linus/master? Probably not but I will
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 13/04/12 12:58, Steven Newbury wrote:
>> It's not stable, crashes soon after GMA comes up. (Could be
>> unrelated breakage in linus/master? Probably not but I will
>> verify.) I noticed the high allocations are occurin
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 13/04/12 12:45, Steven Newbury wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Apr 2012, 09:26:55 BST, Yinghai Lu
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 9:40 AM, Steven Newbury
>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> It would be useful to
On Fri, 13 Apr 2012, 09:26:55 BST, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 9:40 AM, Steven Newbury
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > It would be useful to preserve as much low PCI memory address
> > > > space as possible for hotplug devices (like my Radeo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 13/04/12 18:38, Steven Newbury wrote:
> On 13/04/12 17:17, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>>>> Looks like either a btrfs regression or bad interaction with
>>>> for-pci-res-alloc. Oops attached.
>>> Just hit the same oops o
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 13/04/12 17:17, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>>> Looks like either a btrfs regression or bad interaction with
>>> for-pci-res-alloc. Oops attached.
>> Just hit the same oops on the rc1+for-pci-res-alloc kernel I
>> tried earlier so it's not definitely someth
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 13/04/12 17:17, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>>> Looks like either a btrfs regression or bad interaction with
>>> for-pci-res-alloc. Oops attached.
>> Just hit the same oops on the rc1+for-pci-res-alloc kernel I
>> tried earlier so it's not definitely someth
On Fri, 13 Apr 2012, 09:26:55 BST, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 9:40 AM, Steven Newbury
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > It would be useful to preserve as much low PCI memory address
> > > > space as possible for hotplug devices (like my Radeo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 13/04/12 16:23, Steven Newbury wrote:
> On 13/04/12 15:19, Steven Newbury wrote:
>> On 13/04/12 15:13, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>>> On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 03:08:36PM +0100, Steven Newbury
>>> wrote:
>>>> -B
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 13/04/12 15:19, Steven Newbury wrote:
> On 13/04/12 15:13, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 03:08:36PM +0100, Steven Newbury wrote:
>>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1
>>>
>>> On
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 13/04/12 15:13, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 03:08:36PM +0100, Steven Newbury wrote:
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On 13/04/12 14:52, Steven Newbury wrote:
>>> On Fri, 13
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 13/04/12 14:52, Steven Newbury wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Apr 2012, 14:26:19 BST, Steven Newbury
> wrote:
>
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On 13/04/12 13:49, Steven Newbury wrote:
>>> On
On Fri, 13 Apr 2012, 14:26:19 BST, Steven Newbury wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 13/04/12 13:49, Steven Newbury wrote:
> > On 13/04/12 12:58, Steven Newbury wrote:
> >
> > > > It's not stable, crashes soon after G
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 13/04/12 13:49, Steven Newbury wrote:
> On 13/04/12 12:58, Steven Newbury wrote:
>
>>> It's not stable, crashes soon after GMA comes up. (Could be
>>> unrelated breakage in linus/master? Probably not but I will
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 13/04/12 12:58, Steven Newbury wrote:
>> It's not stable, crashes soon after GMA comes up. (Could be
>> unrelated breakage in linus/master? Probably not but I will
>> verify.) I noticed the high allocations are occurin
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 13/04/12 12:45, Steven Newbury wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Apr 2012, 09:26:55 BST, Yinghai Lu
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 9:40 AM, Steven Newbury
>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> It would be useful to
On Fri, 13 Apr 2012, 09:26:55 BST, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 9:40 AM, Steven Newbury
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > It would be useful to preserve as much low PCI memory address
> > > > space as possible for hotplug devices (like my Radeo
On Fri, 13 Apr 2012, 09:26:55 BST, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 9:40 AM, Steven Newbury
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > It would be useful to preserve as much low PCI memory address
> > > > space as possible for hotplug devices (like my Radeo
On Thu, 12 Apr 2012, 17:07:33 BST, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 4:22 AM, Steven Newbury
> wrote:
> > Thanks, that fixed it! :) I had a similar patch I've been working on
> > but I had my fix in the wrong place!
> >
> > In the working case
On Thu, 12 Apr 2012, 12:22:34 BST, Steven Newbury
wrote:
> I've attempted to modify probe.c to disable 64-bit BARs not allocated
> above 4G so they get reallocated above when possible later.? It seemed
> to work, but again broke GMA despite the BAR originally containing an
> i
On Thu, 12 Apr 2012, 01:57:17 BST, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 2:19 PM, Steven Newbury
> wrote:
> > Another thought, normally the integrated graphics has an "AGP"
> > aperture of 256M @0xe000, which is detected by agpgart-intel, this
> > wi
On Thu, 12 Apr 2012, 17:07:33 BST, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 4:22 AM, Steven Newbury
> wrote:
> > Thanks, that fixed it! :) I had a similar patch I've been working on
> > but I had my fix in the wrong place!
> >
> > In the working case
On Thu, 12 Apr 2012, 12:22:34 BST, Steven Newbury wrote:
> I've attempted to modify probe.c to disable 64-bit BARs not allocated
> above 4G so they get reallocated above when possible later. It seemed
> to work, but again broke GMA despite the BAR originally containing an
> i
On Thu, 12 Apr 2012, 01:57:17 BST, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 2:19 PM, Steven Newbury
> wrote:
> > Another thought, normally the integrated graphics has an "AGP"
> > aperture of 256M @0xe000, which is detected by agpgart-intel, this
> > wi
> > > > > > On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 5:49 PM, Dave Airlie
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > can you guys ask someone internally about it also, there is a
> > > > > > > driver somewhere in Google also for driving the LVDS->HDMI
> > > > > > > adapter but I'm not sure what i2c bus its hanging off.
> >
> > > > > > On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 5:49 PM, Dave Airlie
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > can you guys ask someone internally about it also, there is a
> > > > > > > driver somewhere in Google also for driving the LVDS->HDMI
> > > > > > > adapter but I'm not sure what i2c bus its hanging off.
> >
> > > > > On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 5:49 PM, Dave Airlie
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > can you guys ask someone internally about it also, there is a
> > > > > > driver somewhere in Google also for driving the LVDS->HDMI
> > > > > > adapter but I'm not sure what i2c bus its hanging off.
> > > > > >
>
1 - 100 of 115 matches
Mail list logo
