On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 6:56 PM, Keith Packard kei...@keithp.com wrote:
Kernels with no iommu support cannot ever need the Ironlake
work-around, so never enable it in that case.
Might be better to completely remove the work-around from the kernel
in this case?
While I'm not offended by this
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 15:56, Keith Packard kei...@keithp.com wrote:
Kernels with no iommu support cannot ever need the Ironlake
work-around, so never enable it in that case.
Might be better to completely remove the work-around from the kernel
in this case?
Signed-off-by: Keith Packard
Kernels with no iommu support cannot ever need the Ironlake
work-around, so never enable it in that case.
Might be better to completely remove the work-around from the kernel
in this case?
Signed-off-by: Keith Packard kei...@keithp.com
Cc: Ben Widawsky b...@bwidawsk.net
---
Kernels with no iommu support cannot ever need the Ironlake
work-around, so never enable it in that case.
Might be better to completely remove the work-around from the kernel
in this case?
Signed-off-by: Keith Packard kei...@keithp.com
Cc: Ben Widawsky b...@bwidawsk.net
---
Here's a shorter
On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 10:56:29 -0700
Keith Packard kei...@keithp.com wrote:
Kernels with no iommu support cannot ever need the Ironlake
work-around, so never enable it in that case.
Might be better to completely remove the work-around from the kernel
in this case?
Signed-off-by: Keith
