LGTM
Ruiling
> -Original Message-
> From: Intel-gfx [mailto:intel-gfx-boun...@lists.freedesktop.org] On Behalf Of
> Yang Rong
> Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2016 4:20 PM
> To: beig...@lists.freedesktop.org; intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org;
> arun.siluv...@linux.intel.com
> Subject: [Intel-gf
> -Original Message-
> From: Intel-gfx [mailto:intel-gfx-boun...@lists.freedesktop.org] On Behalf
> Of Micha? Winiarski
> Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2015 10:07 PM
> To: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
> Cc: Ben Widawsky ; dri-de...@lists.freedesktop.org;
> mesa-...@lists.freedesktop.org
> -Original Message-
> From: hoegsb...@gmail.com [mailto:hoegsb...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
> Kristian H?gsberg
> Sent: Monday, December 14, 2015 1:34 PM
> To: Song, Ruiling
> Cc: Winiarski, Michal ; intel-
> g...@lists.freedesktop.org; mesa-...@lists.freedesk
> -Original Message-
> From: Daniel Vetter [mailto:daniel.vet...@ffwll.ch] On Behalf Of Daniel
> Vetter
> Sent: Monday, December 14, 2015 4:28 PM
> To: Song, Ruiling
> Cc: k...@bitplanet.net; Winiarski, Michal ;
> mesa-...@lists.freedesktop.org; intel-gfx@lists
> -Original Message-
> From: Kristian Høgsberg [mailto:hoegsb...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2015 4:09 AM
> To: Song, Ruiling ; k...@bitplanet.net; Winiarski,
> Michal
> Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org; mesa-...@lists.freedesktop.org; Ben
&
Hi Daniel,
OpenCL language support NULL pointer, using zero as the NULL pointer is the
obvious way. That is zero will be treated as invalid address.
Then it requires drm won't allocate zero to drm buffer. And David in CC list
has help us make a patch, please see attached. The logic is only for
p
> -Original Message-
> From: Daniel Vetter [mailto:daniel.vet...@ffwll.ch] On Behalf Of Daniel
> Vetter
> Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2015 1:14 AM
> To: Chris Wilson; Daniel Vetter; Weinehall, David; Zou, Nanhai; Song, Ruiling;
> Vetter, Daniel; intel-gfx@lists.freedeskt
> Yeah, MAP_FIXED sounds a bit more ambitious and though I think it would
> work for OCL 2.0 pointer sharing, it's a little different than we were
> planning.
> To summarize, we have three possible approaches, each with its own
> problems:
> 1) simple patch to avoid binding at address 0 in PPGT
> Yeah my big concern was with not making this opt-in like the old patch or
> adding an interface which does a lot more than what we need right now
> (Chris' patch). Just a bitflag to ask for this seems best and is fine with me.
>
> And for the implementation I think we should reuse the PIN_BIAS
