Am 11.02.21 um 16:58 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 09:23:52PM +0100, Christian König wrote:
Am 10.02.21 um 19:15 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 5:05 PM Christian König
wrote:
The old implementation wasn't consistend on this.
But it looks like we depend on
On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 09:23:52PM +0100, Christian König wrote:
>
>
> Am 10.02.21 um 19:15 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
> > On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 5:05 PM Christian König
> > wrote:
> > > The old implementation wasn't consistend on this.
> > >
> > > But it looks like we depend on this so better bri
Am 10.02.21 um 19:15 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 5:05 PM Christian König
wrote:
The old implementation wasn't consistend on this.
But it looks like we depend on this so better bring it back.
Signed-off-by: Christian König
Reported-and-tested-by: Mike Galbraith
Fixes: d0
On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 5:05 PM Christian König
wrote:
>
> The old implementation wasn't consistend on this.
>
> But it looks like we depend on this so better bring it back.
>
> Signed-off-by: Christian König
> Reported-and-tested-by: Mike Galbraith
> Fixes: d099fc8f540a ("drm/ttm: new TT backen
The old implementation wasn't consistend on this.
But it looks like we depend on this so better bring it back.
Signed-off-by: Christian König
Reported-and-tested-by: Mike Galbraith
Fixes: d099fc8f540a ("drm/ttm: new TT backend allocation pool v3")
---
drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_pool.c | 10 ++