On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 10:09:26PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 03/07/2013 09:28 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 9:27 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> >> They are not using memblock_find_in_range(), so 1ULL<< will not help.
> >>
> >> Really hope i915 drm guys could clean that hacks.
>
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 11:50:48PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 10:09:26PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > On 03/07/2013 09:28 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 9:27 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> > >> They are not using memblock_find_in_range(), so 1ULL<< will n
The problem is that the code will be broken, and so it makes no sense. The #if
0 is really confusing.
Daniel Vetter wrote:
>On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 10:09:26PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> On 03/07/2013 09:28 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
>> > On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 9:27 PM, Yinghai Lu
>wrote:
>> >>
The problem is that the code will be broken, and so it makes no sense. The #if
0 is really confusing.
Daniel Vetter wrote:
>On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 10:09:26PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> On 03/07/2013 09:28 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
>> > On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 9:27 PM, Yinghai Lu
>wrote:
>> >>
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 11:50:48PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 10:09:26PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > On 03/07/2013 09:28 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 9:27 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> > >> They are not using memblock_find_in_range(), so 1ULL<< will n
On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 10:09:26PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 03/07/2013 09:28 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 9:27 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> >> They are not using memblock_find_in_range(), so 1ULL<< will not help.
> >>
> >> Really hope i915 drm guys could clean that hacks.
>
On 03/07/2013 09:28 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 9:27 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>> They are not using memblock_find_in_range(), so 1ULL<< will not help.
>>
>> Really hope i915 drm guys could clean that hacks.
>
> The code isn't being used. Just leave it alone. Maybe add a comment.
On 03/07/2013 09:28 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 9:27 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>> They are not using memblock_find_in_range(), so 1ULL<< will not help.
>>
>> Really hope i915 drm guys could clean that hacks.
>
> The code isn't being used. Just leave it alone. Maybe add a comment.
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 9:27 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> They are not using memblock_find_in_range(), so 1ULL<< will not help.
>
> Really hope i915 drm guys could clean that hacks.
The code isn't being used. Just leave it alone. Maybe add a comment.
The change is just making things more confusing.
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 9:27 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> They are not using memblock_find_in_range(), so 1ULL<< will not help.
>
> Really hope i915 drm guys could clean that hacks.
The code isn't being used. Just leave it alone. Maybe add a comment.
The change is just making things more confusing.
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 9:25 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 9:22 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 9:10 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
>>> On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 08:58:27PM -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote:
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_stolen.c
b/drivers/gpu/dr
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 9:25 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 9:22 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 9:10 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
>>> On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 08:58:27PM -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote:
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_stolen.c
b/drivers/gpu/dr
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 9:22 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 9:10 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 08:58:27PM -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_stolen.c
>>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_stolen.c
>>> index 69d97cb..7f9380b 1006
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 9:22 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 9:10 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 08:58:27PM -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_stolen.c
>>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_stolen.c
>>> index 69d97cb..7f9380b 1006
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 9:10 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 08:58:27PM -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_stolen.c
>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_stolen.c
>> index 69d97cb..7f9380b 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_stolen.c
>> +++
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 9:10 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 08:58:27PM -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_stolen.c
>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_stolen.c
>> index 69d97cb..7f9380b 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_stolen.c
>> +++
On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 08:58:27PM -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_stolen.c
> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_stolen.c
> index 69d97cb..7f9380b 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_stolen.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_stolen.c
> @@ -81,7 +81,
On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 08:58:27PM -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_stolen.c
> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_stolen.c
> index 69d97cb..7f9380b 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_stolen.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_stolen.c
> @@ -81,7 +81,
Now we have arch_pfn_mapped array, and max_low_pfn_mapped should not
be used anymore.
Only user is ACPI_OVERRIDE, and it should not use that, as later
accessing is using early_remap. Change to try to 4G below and
then 4G above.
Other user is in drm/i915, but it is commented out.
Should use arch_
Now we have arch_pfn_mapped array, and max_low_pfn_mapped should not
be used anymore.
Only user is ACPI_OVERRIDE, and it should not use that, as later
accessing is using early_remap. Change to try to 4G below and
then 4G above.
Other user is in drm/i915, but it is commented out.
Should use arch_
20 matches
Mail list logo