On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 05:09:53PM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 12:41:53PM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > +#define I915_READ64_2x32(lower_reg, upper_reg) ({ \
> > + u32 upper = I915_READ(upper_reg); \
> > + u32 lower
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 05:09:53PM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 12:41:53PM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > As Broadwell has an increased virtual address size, it requires more
> > than 32 bits to store offsets into its address space. This includes the
> > debug registers to t
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 12:41:53PM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
> As Broadwell has an increased virtual address size, it requires more
> than 32 bits to store offsets into its address space. This includes the
> debug registers to track the current HEAD of the individual rings, which
> may be anywhere
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 07:43:48PM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 07:41:17PM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 12:41:53PM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > > As Broadwell has an increased virtual address size, it requires more
> > > than 32 bits to store offs
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 07:41:17PM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 12:41:53PM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > As Broadwell has an increased virtual address size, it requires more
> > than 32 bits to store offsets into its address space. This includes the
> > debug registers to t
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 12:41:53PM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
> As Broadwell has an increased virtual address size, it requires more
> than 32 bits to store offsets into its address space. This includes the
> debug registers to track the current HEAD of the individual rings, which
> may be anywhere
On 03/21/2014 12:00 PM, Chris Wilson wrote:
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 10:50:05AM +, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
No, think you misunderstood me. I said "slightly more defensive"
just in the sense that in case of weird hardware failures you have a
potentially infinite loop now, where you don't really
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 10:50:05AM +, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> No, think you misunderstood me. I said "slightly more defensive"
> just in the sense that in case of weird hardware failures you have a
> potentially infinite loop now, where you don't really need a loop -
> probabilities strongly su
On 03/21/2014 10:14 AM, Chris Wilson wrote:
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 10:03:38AM +, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 03/20/2014 09:48 PM, Chris Wilson wrote:
As Broadwell has an increased virtual address size, it requires more
than 32 bits to store offsets into its address space. This includes the
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 10:03:38AM +, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>
> On 03/20/2014 09:48 PM, Chris Wilson wrote:
> >As Broadwell has an increased virtual address size, it requires more
> >than 32 bits to store offsets into its address space. This includes the
> >debug registers to track the current
On 03/20/2014 09:48 PM, Chris Wilson wrote:
As Broadwell has an increased virtual address size, it requires more
than 32 bits to store offsets into its address space. This includes the
debug registers to track the current HEAD of the individual rings, which
may be anywhere within the per-process
11 matches
Mail list logo
