On Sun, 28 Oct 2012 09:48:35 +0000 Chris Wilson <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 14:58:45 -0700, Ben Widawsky <[email protected]> > wrote: > > On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 18:03:09 +0100 > > Chris Wilson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > A few of the earlier registers where enlarged and so the Base > > > Data of Stolen Memory Register (BDSM) was pushed to 0xb0. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <[email protected]> > > > Reviewed-by: Jesse Barnes <[email protected]> > > > > This patch seems irrelevant to me. I have a i915_stolen_to_phys > > which already looks correct (git blame shows you last updated it in > > April). > > > > Can you help unconfuse me? > > As the patch suggests the current registers being used by > stolen-to-phys are incorrect for SNB+. > -Chris > Well no thanks to you, I found my confusion. Since I skipped patch 2 as I don't care about gen2, this patch made no sense to me. It looks like I need to go back and review patch 2 since among fixing detection for gen2 you did a few other things such as changing the name from i915_stolen_to_physical to i915_stolen_to_phys. _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
