On Monday, June 11, 2007 8:59:14 Dave Jones wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 11:34:25AM +0800, Wang Zhenyu wrote:
> > I understand. Before James reported his problem on i915, I have
> > thought the basic restore on that chip should already be enough,
> > but he proved I was wrong and I'm not sur
On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 09:54:59AM +0800, Wang Zhenyu wrote:
> + for (i = 0; i < 48; i++) {
You seem to be writing the base address after the aperture size? That
won't work. As Dave says, there are ordering contraints.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe from th
On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 11:34:25AM +0800, Wang Zhenyu wrote:
> I understand. Before James reported his problem on i915, I have thought
> the basic restore on that chip should already be enough, but he proved I was
> wrong and I'm not sure if this also happens on other i915 board with
> differ
On 2007.06.11 22:23:21 +, Dave Jones wrote:
>
> I'd feel much safer if we only did this on chipsets where we know we
> have to do it. Doing this for *every* Intel chipset ever made _will_
> bite us. There are some early chipsets (440BX era iirc) that would just
> hang the box when you trie
On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 09:54:59AM +0800, Wang Zhenyu wrote:
> It looks that config space save/restore for intel-agp still has problem
> that might affect some chip models. Andreas Mohr's work on his i815
> suspend/resume
> support showed that we need to save extra bits in config space on thi
Dave,
It looks that config space save/restore for intel-agp still has problem
that might affect some chip models. Andreas Mohr's work on his i815
suspend/resume
support showed that we need to save extra bits in config space on this old chip
type.
His patch is in -mm tree,
http://www.kernel.or
6 matches
Mail list logo
