On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 10:07 AM, St?phane Marchesin
wrote:
> On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 5:02 PM, Alexandre Courbot
> wrote:
>> On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 6:21 PM, Lucas Stach
>> wrote:
>>> Am Montag, den 26.05.2014, 09:45 +0300 schrieb Terje Bergstr?m:
On 23.05.2014 17:40, Alex Courbot wrote:
On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 6:21 PM, Lucas Stach wrote:
> Am Montag, den 26.05.2014, 09:45 +0300 schrieb Terje Bergstr?m:
>> On 23.05.2014 17:40, Alex Courbot wrote:
>> > On 05/23/2014 06:59 PM, Lucas Stach wrote:
>> > So after checking with more knowledgeable people, it turns out this is
>> > the exp
On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 7:42 PM, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
> On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 10:07 AM, St?phane Marchesin
> wrote:
>> On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 5:02 PM, Alexandre Courbot
>> wrote:
>>> On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 6:21 PM, Lucas Stach
>>> wrote:
Am Montag, den 26.05.2014, 09:45 +0300 sch
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 6:24 PM, Lucas Stach wrote:
>> The best way to solve this issue would be to not use the BAR at all
>> since the memory behind these objects can be directly accessed by the
>> CPU. As such it would better be mapped using ttm_bo_kmap_ttm()
>> instead. But right now this is cl
On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 5:02 PM, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
> On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 6:21 PM, Lucas Stach
> wrote:
>> Am Montag, den 26.05.2014, 09:45 +0300 schrieb Terje Bergstr?m:
>>> On 23.05.2014 17:40, Alex Courbot wrote:
>>> > On 05/23/2014 06:59 PM, Lucas Stach wrote:
>>> > So after checki
Am Montag, den 26.05.2014, 09:45 +0300 schrieb Terje Bergstr?m:
> On 23.05.2014 17:40, Alex Courbot wrote:
> > On 05/23/2014 06:59 PM, Lucas Stach wrote:
> > So after checking with more knowledgeable people, it turns out this is
> > the expected behavior on ARM and BAR regions should be mapped unc
On 23.05.2014 17:40, Alex Courbot wrote:
> On 05/23/2014 06:59 PM, Lucas Stach wrote:
> So after checking with more knowledgeable people, it turns out this is
> the expected behavior on ARM and BAR regions should be mapped uncached
> on GK20A. All the more reasons to avoid using the BAR at all.
On 05/23/2014 06:59 PM, Lucas Stach wrote:
> Am Freitag, den 23.05.2014, 18:43 +0900 schrieb Alexandre Courbot:
>> On 05/23/2014 06:24 PM, Lucas Stach wrote:
>>> Am Freitag, den 23.05.2014, 16:10 +0900 schrieb Alexandre Courbot:
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 7:16 PM, Lucas Stach
wrote:
>
On 05/23/2014 06:24 PM, Lucas Stach wrote:
> Am Freitag, den 23.05.2014, 16:10 +0900 schrieb Alexandre Courbot:
>> On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 7:16 PM, Lucas Stach
>> wrote:
>>> Am Montag, den 19.05.2014, 19:06 +0900 schrieb Alexandre Courbot:
On 05/19/2014 06:57 PM, Lucas Stach wrote:
> Am
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 7:16 PM, Lucas Stach wrote:
> Am Montag, den 19.05.2014, 19:06 +0900 schrieb Alexandre Courbot:
>> On 05/19/2014 06:57 PM, Lucas Stach wrote:
>> > Am Montag, den 19.05.2014, 18:46 +0900 schrieb Alexandre Courbot:
>> >> This patch is not meant to be merged, but rather to try
Am Freitag, den 23.05.2014, 18:43 +0900 schrieb Alexandre Courbot:
> On 05/23/2014 06:24 PM, Lucas Stach wrote:
> > Am Freitag, den 23.05.2014, 16:10 +0900 schrieb Alexandre Courbot:
> >> On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 7:16 PM, Lucas Stach
> >> wrote:
> >>> Am Montag, den 19.05.2014, 19:06 +0900 schrieb
Am Freitag, den 23.05.2014, 16:10 +0900 schrieb Alexandre Courbot:
> On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 7:16 PM, Lucas Stach
> wrote:
> > Am Montag, den 19.05.2014, 19:06 +0900 schrieb Alexandre Courbot:
> >> On 05/19/2014 06:57 PM, Lucas Stach wrote:
> >> > Am Montag, den 19.05.2014, 18:46 +0900 schrieb Al
On 05/19/2014 06:57 PM, Lucas Stach wrote:
> Am Montag, den 19.05.2014, 18:46 +0900 schrieb Alexandre Courbot:
>> This patch is not meant to be merged, but rather to try and understand
>> why this is needed and what a more suitable solution could be.
>>
>> Allowing BOs to be write-cached results in
This patch is not meant to be merged, but rather to try and understand
why this is needed and what a more suitable solution could be.
Allowing BOs to be write-cached results in the following happening when
trying to run any program on Tegra/GK20A:
Unhandled fault: external abort on non-linefetch
Am Montag, den 19.05.2014, 19:06 +0900 schrieb Alexandre Courbot:
> On 05/19/2014 06:57 PM, Lucas Stach wrote:
> > Am Montag, den 19.05.2014, 18:46 +0900 schrieb Alexandre Courbot:
> >> This patch is not meant to be merged, but rather to try and understand
> >> why this is needed and what a more su
Am Montag, den 19.05.2014, 18:46 +0900 schrieb Alexandre Courbot:
> This patch is not meant to be merged, but rather to try and understand
> why this is needed and what a more suitable solution could be.
>
> Allowing BOs to be write-cached results in the following happening when
> trying to run an
16 matches
Mail list logo