On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 04:07:05PM +0100, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
> On 10/28/2014 12:10 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 06:35:04PM +0900, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> >> From: Michel Dänzer
> >>
> >> DRM_MM_SEARCH_BEST gets the smallest hole which can fit the BO. That seems
> >> a
On 28.10.2014 20:10, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 06:35:04PM +0900, Michel Dänzer wrote:
>> From: Michel Dänzer
>>
>> DRM_MM_SEARCH_BEST gets the smallest hole which can fit the BO. That seems
>> against the idea of TTM_PL_FLAG_TOPDOWN:
>>
>> * The smallest hole may be in the o
On 10/28/2014 12:10 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 06:35:04PM +0900, Michel Dänzer wrote:
>> From: Michel Dänzer
>>
>> DRM_MM_SEARCH_BEST gets the smallest hole which can fit the BO. That seems
>> against the idea of TTM_PL_FLAG_TOPDOWN:
>>
>> * The smallest hole may be in th
From: Michel Dänzer
DRM_MM_SEARCH_BEST gets the smallest hole which can fit the BO. That seems
against the idea of TTM_PL_FLAG_TOPDOWN:
* The smallest hole may be in the overall bottom of the area
* If the hole isn't much larger than the BO, it doesn't make much
difference whether the BO is p
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 06:35:04PM +0900, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> From: Michel Dänzer
>
> DRM_MM_SEARCH_BEST gets the smallest hole which can fit the BO. That seems
> against the idea of TTM_PL_FLAG_TOPDOWN:
>
> * The smallest hole may be in the overall bottom of the area
> * If the hole isn't