On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 09:07:57AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 10:01:31AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 11:47:02AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > > On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 05:35:21PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > > Currently we have the problem
On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 10:01:31AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 11:47:02AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 05:35:21PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > Currently we have the problem that the decision whether ptes need to
> > > be (re)written is splatt
On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 11:47:02AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 05:35:21PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > Currently we have the problem that the decision whether ptes need to
> > be (re)written is splattered all over the codebase. Move all that into
> > i915_vma_bind. This
On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 05:35:21PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> Currently we have the problem that the decision whether ptes need to
> be (re)written is splattered all over the codebase. Move all that into
> i915_vma_bind. This needs a few changes:
> - Just reuse the PIN_* flags for i915_vma_bind
Currently we have the problem that the decision whether ptes need to
be (re)written is splattered all over the codebase. Move all that into
i915_vma_bind. This needs a few changes:
- Just reuse the PIN_* flags for i915_vma_bind and do the conversion
to vma->bound in there to avoid duplicating the
