* Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.sid...@intel.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-10-19 at 02:16 -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > Functionality-wise this looks fine to me
>
> If we are going to make ioremap() and set_memory_wc() add mtrr's in
> non-pat case, then we need to delete the added mtrr(s) in the
> corresponding iounmap() and set_memory_wb() aswell.
>
> hmm, this is becoming too complex. The way i915 and other graphics
> drivers are using set_memory_wc(), it is def a bad idea to start
> adding mtrr's behind the back for non-pat case.
Touching MTRRs beyond working around basic bugs like non-cached RAM
sounds like madness. The interactions with PAT are ... countless.
> Can't we just force PAT option always and we probably don't care about
> ioremap_wc() on processors were PAT doesn't get enabled because of
> known errata.
We can make PAT configurability dependent on EMBEDDED-y - mind sending a
patch for that?
Ingo
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA
is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your
developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay
ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference
--
_______________________________________________
Dri-devel mailing list
Dri-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
