[PATCH 0/1][RFC] drm/ttm Improved io_mem_reserve / io_mem_free_calling

2010-11-12 Thread Ben Skeggs
On Thu, 2010-11-11 at 17:50 +0100, Thomas Hellstrom wrote: > On 11/11/2010 04:27 PM, Jerome Glisse wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 3:41 AM, Thomas Hellstrom > > wrote: > > > >> The following patch is really intended for the next merge window. > >> > >> RFC: > >> 1) Are there any

[PATCH 0/1][RFC] drm/ttm Improved io_mem_reserve / io_mem_free_calling

2010-11-12 Thread Thomas Hellstrom
On 11/11/2010 11:46 PM, Ben Skeggs wrote: > On Thu, 2010-11-11 at 17:50 +0100, Thomas Hellstrom wrote: > >> On 11/11/2010 04:27 PM, Jerome Glisse wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 3:41 AM, Thomas Hellstrom >>> wrote: >>> >>> The following patch is really intended for

[PATCH 0/1][RFC] drm/ttm Improved io_mem_reserve / io_mem_free_calling

2010-11-11 Thread Thomas Hellstrom
On 11/11/2010 04:27 PM, Jerome Glisse wrote: > On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 3:41 AM, Thomas Hellstrom > wrote: > >> The following patch is really intended for the next merge window. >> >> RFC: >> 1) Are there any implementations of driver::io_mem_reserve today that can't >> use >> the fastpath?

[PATCH 0/1][RFC] drm/ttm Improved io_mem_reserve / io_mem_free_calling

2010-11-11 Thread Jerome Glisse
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 3:41 AM, Thomas Hellstrom wrote: > The following patch is really intended for the next merge window. > > RFC: > 1) Are there any implementations of driver::io_mem_reserve today that can't > use > the fastpath? > 2) Can we put an atomic requirement on

[PATCH 0/1][RFC] drm/ttm Improved io_mem_reserve / io_mem_free_calling

2010-11-11 Thread Thomas Hellstrom
The following patch is really intended for the next merge window. RFC: 1) Are there any implementations of driver::io_mem_reserve today that can't use the fastpath? 2) Can we put an atomic requirement on driver::io_mem_reserve / driver::io_mem_free? The patch improves on the io_mem_reserve /

[PATCH 0/1][RFC] drm/ttm Improved io_mem_reserve / io_mem_free_calling

2010-11-11 Thread Thomas Hellstrom
The following patch is really intended for the next merge window. RFC: 1) Are there any implementations of driver::io_mem_reserve today that can't use the fastpath? 2) Can we put an atomic requirement on driver::io_mem_reserve / driver::io_mem_free? The patch improves on the io_mem_reserve /

Re: [PATCH 0/1][RFC] drm/ttm Improved io_mem_reserve / io_mem_free_calling

2010-11-11 Thread Jerome Glisse
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 3:41 AM, Thomas Hellstrom thellst...@vmware.com wrote: The following patch is really intended for the next merge window. RFC: 1) Are there any implementations of driver::io_mem_reserve today that can't use the fastpath? 2) Can we put an atomic requirement on

Re: [PATCH 0/1][RFC] drm/ttm Improved io_mem_reserve / io_mem_free_calling

2010-11-11 Thread Thomas Hellstrom
On 11/11/2010 04:27 PM, Jerome Glisse wrote: On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 3:41 AM, Thomas Hellstromthellst...@vmware.com wrote: The following patch is really intended for the next merge window. RFC: 1) Are there any implementations of driver::io_mem_reserve today that can't use the fastpath?

Re: [PATCH 0/1][RFC] drm/ttm Improved io_mem_reserve / io_mem_free_calling

2010-11-11 Thread Ben Skeggs
On Thu, 2010-11-11 at 17:50 +0100, Thomas Hellstrom wrote: On 11/11/2010 04:27 PM, Jerome Glisse wrote: On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 3:41 AM, Thomas Hellstromthellst...@vmware.com wrote: The following patch is really intended for the next merge window. RFC: 1) Are there any

Re: [PATCH 0/1][RFC] drm/ttm Improved io_mem_reserve / io_mem_free_calling

2010-11-11 Thread Thomas Hellstrom
On 11/11/2010 11:46 PM, Ben Skeggs wrote: On Thu, 2010-11-11 at 17:50 +0100, Thomas Hellstrom wrote: On 11/11/2010 04:27 PM, Jerome Glisse wrote: On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 3:41 AM, Thomas Hellstromthellst...@vmware.com wrote: The following patch is really intended for the