Am 21.02.23 um 17:26 schrieb Matthew Auld:
On 21/02/2023 16:17, Christian König wrote:
Am 21.02.23 um 17:13 schrieb Matthew Auld:
On 10/02/2023 11:03, Christian König wrote:
Am 08.02.23 um 15:53 schrieb Matthew Auld:
The ttm BO now initially has NULL bo->resource, and leaves the driver
the
On 21/02/2023 16:17, Christian König wrote:
Am 21.02.23 um 17:13 schrieb Matthew Auld:
On 10/02/2023 11:03, Christian König wrote:
Am 08.02.23 um 15:53 schrieb Matthew Auld:
The ttm BO now initially has NULL bo->resource, and leaves the driver
the handle that. However it looks like we forgot
Am 21.02.23 um 17:13 schrieb Matthew Auld:
On 10/02/2023 11:03, Christian König wrote:
Am 08.02.23 um 15:53 schrieb Matthew Auld:
The ttm BO now initially has NULL bo->resource, and leaves the driver
the handle that. However it looks like we forgot to handle that for
ttm_bo_move_memcpy()
On 10/02/2023 11:03, Christian König wrote:
Am 08.02.23 um 15:53 schrieb Matthew Auld:
The ttm BO now initially has NULL bo->resource, and leaves the driver
the handle that. However it looks like we forgot to handle that for
ttm_bo_move_memcpy() users, like with vram-gem, since it just silently
Am 08.02.23 um 15:53 schrieb Matthew Auld:
The ttm BO now initially has NULL bo->resource, and leaves the driver
the handle that. However it looks like we forgot to handle that for
ttm_bo_move_memcpy() users, like with vram-gem, since it just silently
returns zero. This seems to then trigger
The ttm BO now initially has NULL bo->resource, and leaves the driver
the handle that. However it looks like we forgot to handle that for
ttm_bo_move_memcpy() users, like with vram-gem, since it just silently
returns zero. This seems to then trigger warnings like:
WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 1 at
