On Thu, Jul 04, 2013 at 12:42:15PM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> Setting the node directly is good enough. We don't need a special value
> to store the gtt_offset, and we no longer have the pointer to tuck
> things away neatly.
>
> This is temporarily broken since:
> commit 7dedae28b41000539b6c18bc
On Fri, Jul 05, 2013 at 09:12:05AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 04, 2013 at 11:24:46PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 04, 2013 at 12:42:15PM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> > > Setting the node directly is good enough. We don't need a special value
> > > to store the gtt_offs
On Thu, Jul 04, 2013 at 11:24:46PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 04, 2013 at 12:42:15PM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> > Setting the node directly is good enough. We don't need a special value
> > to store the gtt_offset, and we no longer have the pointer to tuck
> > things away neatly.
>
On Thu, Jul 04, 2013 at 12:42:15PM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> Setting the node directly is good enough. We don't need a special value
> to store the gtt_offset, and we no longer have the pointer to tuck
> things away neatly.
>
> This is temporarily broken since:
> commit 7dedae28b41000539b6c18bc
Setting the node directly is good enough. We don't need a special value
to store the gtt_offset, and we no longer have the pointer to tuck
things away neatly.
This is temporarily broken since:
commit 7dedae28b41000539b6c18bcf72107c97e4937e4
Author: Ben Widawsky
Date: Wed Jul 3 14:45:24 2013 -07
