Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] intel: Fix bufmgr_gem->gen for gen > 4

2012-01-30 Thread Ben Widawsky
On 01/30/12 11:14, Eric Anholt wrote: On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 09:41:50 -0800, Chad Versace wrote: If the pci_device's actual gen was> 4, then we stupidly set bufmgr_gem->gen = 6. Might be worth a note to say that no behavior should change. Still, Reviewed-by: Eric Anholt Right, I'm curious

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] intel: Fix bufmgr_gem->gen for gen > 4

2012-01-30 Thread Chad Versace
On 01/30/2012 11:14 AM, Eric Anholt wrote: > On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 09:41:50 -0800, Chad Versace > wrote: >> If the pci_device's actual gen was > 4, then we stupidly set >> bufmgr_gem->gen = 6. > > Might be worth a note to say that no behavior should change. Still, > > Reviewed-by: Eric Anholt

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] intel: Fix bufmgr_gem->gen for gen > 4

2012-01-30 Thread Eric Anholt
On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 09:41:50 -0800, Chad Versace wrote: > If the pci_device's actual gen was > 4, then we stupidly set > bufmgr_gem->gen = 6. Might be worth a note to say that no behavior should change. Still, Reviewed-by: Eric Anholt pgp09cHYO2QgC.pgp Description: PGP signature ___

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] intel: Fix bufmgr_gem->gen for gen > 4

2012-01-30 Thread Eugeni Dodonov
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 15:41, Chad Versace wrote: > If the pci_device's actual gen was > 4, then we stupidly set > bufmgr_gem->gen = 6. > > Signed-off-by: Chad Versace > Reviewed-by: Eugeni Dodonov I was thinking on maybe making this more future-proof to help the possible >=7 gen devices, but

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH] intel: Fix bufmgr_gem->gen for gen > 4

2012-01-30 Thread Chad Versace
If the pci_device's actual gen was > 4, then we stupidly set bufmgr_gem->gen = 6. Signed-off-by: Chad Versace --- intel/intel_bufmgr_gem.c |8 +++- 1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) diff --git a/intel/intel_bufmgr_gem.c b/intel/intel_bufmgr_gem.c index 2b4fab1..26e3a5c 10