Matthew,
On Thu, 7 Dec 2017, Matthew Auld wrote:
Can you please add a version number to your patches? Having the same
subject line five times is just annoying.
> From: Joonas Lahtinen
> To give upcoming SKU BIOSes more flexibility in placing the Intel
>
From: Joonas Lahtinen
To give upcoming SKU BIOSes more flexibility in placing the Intel
graphics stolen memory, make all variables storing the placement or size
compatible with full 64 bit range. Also by exporting the stolen region
as a resource, we can then nuke
From: Joonas Lahtinen
To give upcoming SKU BIOSes more flexibility in placing the Intel
graphics stolen memory, make all variables storing the placement or size
compatible with full 64 bit range. Also by exporting the stolen region
as a resource, we can then nuke
On Fri, 2017-11-24 at 22:05 +, Chris Wilson wrote:
> Quoting Matthew Auld (2017-11-24 21:29:22)
> > From: Joonas Lahtinen
> >
> > In preparation for upcoming SKUs, allow more freedom in placement
> > of the Intel graphics stolen memory by BIOS to full 64bit
On Sat, 2017-11-25 at 00:48 +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Nov 2017, Matthew Auld wrote:
>
> > From: Joonas Lahtinen
>
> Please CC the linux kernel mailinglist on patches related to x86. The
> MAINTAINERS file says:
>
> X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND
On Fri, 24 Nov 2017, Matthew Auld wrote:
> From: Joonas Lahtinen
Please CC the linux kernel mailinglist on patches related to x86. The
MAINTAINERS file says:
X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)
M: Thomas Gleixner
M: Ingo Molnar
Quoting Matthew Auld (2017-11-24 21:29:22)
> From: Joonas Lahtinen
>
> In preparation for upcoming SKUs, allow more freedom in placement
> of the Intel graphics stolen memory by BIOS to full 64bit range.
>
> v2: export the stolen region as a resource
> fix
From: Joonas Lahtinen
In preparation for upcoming SKUs, allow more freedom in placement
of the Intel graphics stolen memory by BIOS to full 64bit range.
v2: export the stolen region as a resource
fix u16 << 16 (Chris)
Signed-off-by: Joonas Lahtinen