Hi!
@@ -79,6 +79,10 @@ static struct drm_driver driver = {
static int __init i810_init(void)
{
+ if (num_present_cpus() 1) {
+ pr_err(drm/i810 does not support SMP\n);
+ return -EINVAL;
+ }
driver.num_ioctls = i810_max_ioctl;
return
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 3:21 AM, Pavel Machek pa...@ucw.cz wrote:
Hi!
@@ -79,6 +79,10 @@ static struct drm_driver driver = {
static int __init i810_init(void)
{
+ if (num_present_cpus() 1) {
+ pr_err(drm/i810 does not support SMP\n);
+ return -EINVAL;
+
On Wednesday 20 October 2010, Dave Young wrote:
be curious, why can't just fix the lock_kernel logic of i810? Fixing
is too hard?
Find a i810 hardware should be possible, even if the hardware does not
support SMP, can't we test the fix with preemption?
Yes, that should work too. My usual
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 06:50:58AM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 11:26 PM, Arnd Bergmann a...@arndb.de wrote:
On Tuesday 19 October 2010, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Tuesday 19 October 2010 06:52:32 Dave Airlie wrote:
I might be able to find some hardware still lying
On Tuesday 19 October 2010 06:52:32 Dave Airlie wrote:
I might be able to find some hardware still lying around here that uses an
i810. Not sure unless I go hunting it. But I get the impression that if
the kernel is a single-CPU kernel there is not any problem anyway? Don't
distros offer a
On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 09:26 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Tuesday 19 October 2010 06:52:32 Dave Airlie wrote:
I might be able to find some hardware still lying around here that uses an
i810. Not sure unless I go hunting it. But I get the impression that if
the kernel is a single-CPU
On Tuesday 19 October 2010, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Tuesday 19 October 2010 06:52:32 Dave Airlie wrote:
I might be able to find some hardware still lying around here that uses an
i810. Not sure unless I go hunting it. But I get the impression that if
the kernel is a single-CPU kernel
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 08:39:58AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 09:26 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Tuesday 19 October 2010 06:52:32 Dave Airlie wrote:
I might be able to find some hardware still lying around here that uses
an
i810. Not sure unless I go
On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 17:40:04 PDT, Greg KH said:
I do have access to this hardware, but its on an old single processor
laptop, so any work that it would take to help do this development,
really wouldn't be able to be tested to be valid at all.
The i810 is a graphics chipset embedded on the
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 02:24:53PM -0400, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 17:40:04 PDT, Greg KH said:
I do have access to this hardware, but its on an old single processor
laptop, so any work that it would take to help do this development,
really wouldn't be able to be
Am Dienstag, 19. Oktober 2010, 21:37:35 schrieb Greg KH:
So no need to clean it up for multiprocessor support.
http://download.intel.com/design/chipsets/datashts/29067602.pdf
http://www.intel.com/design/chipsets/specupdt/29069403.pdf
Great, we can just drop all calls to lock_kernel()
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 09:40:47PM +0200, Oliver Neukum wrote:
Am Dienstag, 19. Oktober 2010, 21:37:35 schrieb Greg KH:
So no need to clean it up for multiprocessor support.
http://download.intel.com/design/chipsets/datashts/29067602.pdf
On Tue, 19 Oct 2010, Greg KH wrote:
So no need to clean it up for multiprocessor support.
http://download.intel.com/design/chipsets/datashts/29067602.pdf
http://www.intel.com/design/chipsets/specupdt/29069403.pdf
Great, we can just drop all calls to lock_kernel() and the
you still need to switch off preemption.
Hm, how would you do that from within a driver?
Do we care - unless I misunderstand the current intel DRM driver handles
the i810 as well ?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-media in
the body of a message to
On Tuesday 19 October 2010 22:29:12 Greg KH wrote:
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 09:40:47PM +0200, Oliver Neukum wrote:
Am Dienstag, 19. Oktober 2010, 21:37:35 schrieb Greg KH:
So no need to clean it up for multiprocessor support.
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 11:26 PM, Arnd Bergmann a...@arndb.de wrote:
On Tuesday 19 October 2010, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Tuesday 19 October 2010 06:52:32 Dave Airlie wrote:
I might be able to find some hardware still lying around here that uses
an
i810. Not sure unless I go hunting it.
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 4:44 AM, Arnd Bergmann a...@arndb.de wrote:
On Tuesday 19 October 2010 22:29:12 Greg KH wrote:
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 09:40:47PM +0200, Oliver Neukum wrote:
Am Dienstag, 19. Oktober 2010, 21:37:35 schrieb Greg KH:
So no need to clean it up for multiprocessor
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 05:42:06PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
Out of the remaining modules, I guess i810/i830, adfs, hpfs and ufs might end
up not getting fixed at all, we can either mark them non-SMP or move them
to drivers/staging once all the others are done.
I recommend moving them to
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 4:43 AM, Greg KH g...@kroah.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 05:42:06PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
Out of the remaining modules, I guess i810/i830, adfs, hpfs and ufs might end
up not getting fixed at all, we can either mark them non-SMP or move them
to
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 09:00:09AM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 4:43 AM, Greg KH g...@kroah.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 05:42:06PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
Out of the remaining modules, I guess i810/i830, adfs, hpfs and ufs might
end
up not getting fixed
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 10:40 AM, Greg KH g...@kroah.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 09:00:09AM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 4:43 AM, Greg KH g...@kroah.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 05:42:06PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
Out of the remaining modules, I guess
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 10:57:43AM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 10:40 AM, Greg KH g...@kroah.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 09:00:09AM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 4:43 AM, Greg KH g...@kroah.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 05:42:06PM +0200,
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 12:24 PM, Greg KH g...@kroah.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 10:57:43AM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 10:40 AM, Greg KH g...@kroah.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 09:00:09AM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 4:43 AM, Greg KH
On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 12:45 +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 12:24 PM, Greg KH g...@kroah.com wrote:
So, there is no need for the i830 driver? Can it just be removed
because i915 works instead?
No because it provides a different userspace ABI to the i915 driver to
a
like I'm sure the intersection of this driver and reality are getting
quite limited, but its still a userspace ABI change and needs to be
treated as such. Xorg 6.7 and XFree86 4.3 were the last users of the
old driver/API.
Thus, you are saying that this will break for people with older user
On Mon, 18 Oct 2010, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 12:45 +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 12:24 PM, Greg KH g...@kroah.com wrote:
So, there is no need for the i830 driver? Can it just be removed
because i915 works instead?
No because it provides a
I might be able to find some hardware still lying around here that uses an
i810. Not sure unless I go hunting it. But I get the impression that if
the kernel is a single-CPU kernel there is not any problem anyway? Don't
distros offer a non-smp kernel as an installation option in case the user
27 matches
Mail list logo
