On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 01:42:21PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 09:58:00AM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> > From: Ben Widawsky
> >
> > Building on the last patch which created the new function pointers in
> > the VM for bind/unbind, here we actually put those new function p
On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 09:58:00AM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> From: Ben Widawsky
>
> Building on the last patch which created the new function pointers in
> the VM for bind/unbind, here we actually put those new function pointers
> to use.
>
> Split out as a separate patch to aid in review. I'
From: Ben Widawsky
Building on the last patch which created the new function pointers in
the VM for bind/unbind, here we actually put those new function pointers
to use.
Split out as a separate patch to aid in review. I'm fine with squashing
into the previous patch if people request it.
v2: Upd
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 08:37:05AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 03:03:18PM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> > @@ -1117,8 +1109,11 @@ i915_gem_do_execbuffer(struct drm_device *dev, void
> > *data,
> > * batch" bit. Hence we need to pin secure batches into the global gtt.
>
On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 03:03:18PM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> @@ -1117,8 +1109,11 @@ i915_gem_do_execbuffer(struct drm_device *dev, void
> *data,
>* batch" bit. Hence we need to pin secure batches into the global gtt.
>* hsw should have this fixed, but let's be paranoid and do it
From: Ben Widawsky
Building on the last patch which created the new function pointers in
the VM for bind/unbind, here we actually put those new function pointers
to use.
Split out as a separate patch to aid in review. I'm fine with squashing
into the previous patch if people request it.
v2: Upd
