On Tuesday, March 8, 2005 12:24 pm, Jesse Barnes wrote: > On Tuesday, March 8, 2005 11:04 am, Jesse Barnes wrote: > > On Tuesday, March 8, 2005 10:47 am, Jesse Barnes wrote: > > > Here are a few small fixes to get r300 going on ia64. Thanks to > > > Stephane for pointing out the resource size mismatch. The patch just > > > fixes that (PCI resources in Linux are 'unsigned long' at the moment, > > > not 'unsigned int') and adds the checking for write combining regions I > > > posted earlier since I don't think that's been applied. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Jesse > > > > Or another one that removes the silly overflow and 'offset within real > > memory' checks altogether. Take your pick as to which should be applied > > :) > > Anyone have a preference on this stuff? Should we remove the checks > altogether or just the ones against the highmem variable? If we did the > latter, we could remove the #ifdefs altogether, though I'm not sure how > useful that check is--seems like we'd run into trouble elsewhere if we got > a bad address anyway...
Oh, and these fixes, regardless of what they are, should go into the main drm tree not the r300 branch, since they're not related to the r300 stuff at all (IOW I can't commit them). Thanks, Jesse ------------------------------------------------------- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click -- _______________________________________________ Dri-devel mailing list Dri-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
