On Mon, Jan 09, 2012 at 10:07:02AM +0100, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
> On 01/06/2012 04:51 PM, James Simmons wrote:
> You can achieve what you want by either adding a new domain so you would
> have
> system, vram, agp, pcidma and object can be bound to one and only one. Or
> you
> >>
On Mon, Jan 09, 2012 at 10:07:02AM +0100, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
> On 01/06/2012 04:51 PM, James Simmons wrote:
> You can achieve what you want by either adding a new domain so you would
> have
> system, vram, agp, pcidma and object can be bound to one and only one. Or
> you
> >>
On 01/06/2012 04:51 PM, James Simmons wrote:
>
You can achieve what you want by either adding a new domain so you would
have
system, vram, agp, pcidma and object can be bound to one and only one. Or
you
can hack your own agp ttm backend that could bind bo to agp or pc
On Mon, Jan 09, 2012 at 10:07:02AM +0100, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
> On 01/06/2012 04:51 PM, James Simmons wrote:
> You can achieve what you want by either adding a new domain so you would
> have
> system, vram, agp, pcidma and object can be bound to one and only one. Or
> you
> >>
On Mon, Jan 09, 2012 at 10:07:02AM +0100, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
> On 01/06/2012 04:51 PM, James Simmons wrote:
> You can achieve what you want by either adding a new domain so you would
> have
> system, vram, agp, pcidma and object can be bound to one and only one. Or
> you
> >>
On 01/06/2012 04:51 PM, James Simmons wrote:
You can achieve what you want by either adding a new domain so you would have
system, vram, agp, pcidma and object can be bound to one and only one. Or you
can hack your own agp ttm backend that could bind bo to agp or pci or
both at the same time
> >> You can achieve what you want by either adding a new domain so you would
> >> have
> >> system, vram, agp, pcidma and object can be bound to one and only one. Or
> >> you
> >> can hack your own agp ttm backend that could bind bo to agp or pci or
> >> both at the same time depending on what
> >> You can achieve what you want by either adding a new domain so you would
> >> have
> >> system, vram, agp, pcidma and object can be bound to one and only one. Or
> >> you
> >> can hack your own agp ttm backend that could bind bo to agp or pci or
> >> both at the same time depending on what
On Tue, Jan 03, 2012 at 05:59:33PM -0500, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 03, 2012 at 05:43:40PM -0500, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 01:19:43AM +, James Simmons wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Hi!
> > > > >
> > > > > ? ? ? ?I updated the openchrome tree and while testing
On Tue, Jan 03, 2012 at 05:59:33PM -0500, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 03, 2012 at 05:43:40PM -0500, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 01:19:43AM +, James Simmons wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Hi!
> > > > >
> > > > > I updated the openchrome tree and while testing
> >> Attached is patch to fix this, so sorry about that, i must have lost my
> >> agp change along the way when working on the patchset. This patch is not
> >> extensively tested, i will do more testing tomorrow on more gpu, might
> >> even found an nvidia agp i can try. Again sorry for breaking t
> Attached is patch to fix this, so sorry about that, i must have lost my
> agp change along the way when working on the patchset. This patch is not
> extensively tested, i will do more testing tomorrow on more gpu, might
> even found an nvidia agp i can try. Again sorry for breaking this.
Thanks
On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 11:04 AM, James Simmons
wrote:
>
>> >> Attached is patch to fix this, so sorry about that, i must have lost my
>> >> agp change along the way when working on the patchset. This patch is not
>> >> extensively tested, i will do more testing tomorrow on more gpu, might
>> >> e
On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 10:36 AM, James Simmons
wrote:
>
>> Attached is patch to fix this, so sorry about that, i must have lost my
>> agp change along the way when working on the patchset. This patch is not
>> extensively tested, i will do more testing tomorrow on more gpu, might
>> even found an
On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 11:04 AM, James Simmons wrote:
>
>> >> Attached is patch to fix this, so sorry about that, i must have lost my
>> >> agp change along the way when working on the patchset. This patch is not
>> >> extensively tested, i will do more testing tomorrow on more gpu, might
>> >> ev
> >> Attached is patch to fix this, so sorry about that, i must have lost my
> >> agp change along the way when working on the patchset. This patch is not
> >> extensively tested, i will do more testing tomorrow on more gpu, might
> >> even found an nvidia agp i can try. Again sorry for breaking t
On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 10:36 AM, James Simmons wrote:
>
>> Attached is patch to fix this, so sorry about that, i must have lost my
>> agp change along the way when working on the patchset. This patch is not
>> extensively tested, i will do more testing tomorrow on more gpu, might
>> even found an
> Attached is patch to fix this, so sorry about that, i must have lost my
> agp change along the way when working on the patchset. This patch is not
> extensively tested, i will do more testing tomorrow on more gpu, might
> even found an nvidia agp i can try. Again sorry for breaking this.
Thanks
On Tue, Jan 03, 2012 at 05:43:40PM -0500, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 01:19:43AM +, James Simmons wrote:
> >
> > > > Hi!
> > > >
> > > > ? ? ? ?I updated the openchrome tree and while testing on the AGP system
> > > > discovered some interesting problems with the new TTM cha
On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 01:19:43AM +, James Simmons wrote:
>
> > > Hi!
> > >
> > > ? ? ? ?I updated the openchrome tree and while testing on the AGP system
> > > discovered some interesting problems with the new TTM changes. The
> > > problems center around the ttm_tt_[un]populate which I mode
On Tue, Jan 03, 2012 at 05:43:40PM -0500, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 01:19:43AM +, James Simmons wrote:
> >
> > > > Hi!
> > > >
> > > > I updated the openchrome tree and while testing on the AGP system
> > > > discovered some interesting problems with the new TTM cha
On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 01:19:43AM +, James Simmons wrote:
>
> > > Hi!
> > >
> > > I updated the openchrome tree and while testing on the AGP system
> > > discovered some interesting problems with the new TTM changes. The
> > > problems center around the ttm_tt_[un]populate which I mode
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 8:19 PM, James Simmons
wrote:
>
>> > Hi!
>> >
>> > ? ? ? ?I updated the openchrome tree and while testing on the AGP system
>> > discovered some interesting problems with the new TTM changes. The
>> > problems center around the ttm_tt_[un]populate which I modeled after the
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 8:19 PM, James Simmons wrote:
>
>> > Hi!
>> >
>> > I updated the openchrome tree and while testing on the AGP system
>> > discovered some interesting problems with the new TTM changes. The
>> > problems center around the ttm_tt_[un]populate which I modeled after the
> > Hi!
> >
> > ? ? ? ?I updated the openchrome tree and while testing on the AGP system
> > discovered some interesting problems with the new TTM changes. The
> > problems center around the ttm_tt_[un]populate which I modeled after the
> > radeon and nouveau driver.
> > ? ? ? ?First problem I not
Hi!
I updated the openchrome tree and while testing on the AGP system
discovered some interesting problems with the new TTM changes. The
problems center around the ttm_tt_[un]populate which I modeled after the
radeon and nouveau driver.
First problem I noticed was on a AGP sys
> > Hi!
> >
> > I updated the openchrome tree and while testing on the AGP system
> > discovered some interesting problems with the new TTM changes. The
> > problems center around the ttm_tt_[un]populate which I modeled after the
> > radeon and nouveau driver.
> > First problem I not
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 4:56 PM, James Simmons
wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> ? ? ? ?I updated the openchrome tree and while testing on the AGP system
> discovered some interesting problems with the new TTM changes. The
> problems center around the ttm_tt_[un]populate which I modeled after the
> radeon and n
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 4:56 PM, James Simmons wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> I updated the openchrome tree and while testing on the AGP system
> discovered some interesting problems with the new TTM changes. The
> problems center around the ttm_tt_[un]populate which I modeled after the
> radeon and no
Hi!
I updated the openchrome tree and while testing on the AGP system
discovered some interesting problems with the new TTM changes. The
problems center around the ttm_tt_[un]populate which I modeled after the
radeon and nouveau driver.
First problem I noticed was on a AGP sys
30 matches
Mail list logo
