On Mon, 2011-03-14 at 12:50 +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
> From: Dave Airlie
>
> So we used to use lpfn directly to restrict VRAM when we couldn't
> access the unmappable area, however this was removed in
> 93225b0d7bc030f4a93165347a65893685822d70 as it also restricted
> the gtt placements. However
On Mon, 2011-03-14 at 12:50 +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
> From: Dave Airlie
>
> So we used to use lpfn directly to restrict VRAM when we couldn't
> access the unmappable area, however this was removed in
> 93225b0d7bc030f4a93165347a65893685822d70 as it also restricted
> the gtt placements. However
From: Dave Airlie
So we used to use lpfn directly to restrict VRAM when we couldn't
access the unmappable area, however this was removed in
93225b0d7bc030f4a93165347a65893685822d70 as it also restricted
the gtt placements. However it was only later noticed that this
broke on some hw.
This remove
From: Dave Airlie
So we used to use lpfn directly to restrict VRAM when we couldn't
access the unmappable area, however this was removed in
93225b0d7bc030f4a93165347a65893685822d70 as it also restricted
the gtt placements. However it was only later noticed that this
broke on some hw.
This remove
From: Dave Airlie
So we used to use lpfn directly to restrict VRAM when we couldn't
access the unmappable area, however this was removed in
93225b0d7bc030f4a93165347a65893685822d70 as it also restricted
the gtt placements. However it was only later noticed that this
broke on some hw.
This remove
From: Dave Airlie
So we used to use lpfn directly to restrict VRAM when we couldn't
access the unmappable area, however this was removed in
93225b0d7bc030f4a93165347a65893685822d70 as it also restricted
the gtt placements. However it was only later noticed that this
broke on some hw.
This remove