On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 3:21 AM, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> @@ -79,6 +79,10 @@ static struct drm_driver driver = {
>>
>> static int __init i810_init(void)
>> {
>> + if (num_present_cpus() > 1) {
>> + pr_err("drm/i810 does not support SMP\n");
>> + return -EINVAL;
>
Hi!
> @@ -79,6 +79,10 @@ static struct drm_driver driver = {
>
> static int __init i810_init(void)
> {
> + if (num_present_cpus() > 1) {
> + pr_err("drm/i810 does not support SMP\n");
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> driver.num_ioctls = i810_max_ioctl;
>
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 06:50:58AM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 11:26 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Tuesday 19 October 2010, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> >> On Tuesday 19 October 2010 06:52:32 Dave Airlie wrote:
> >> > > I might be able to find some hardware still lying around h
On Wednesday 20 October 2010, Dave Young wrote:
> be curious, why can't just fix the lock_kernel logic of i810? Fixing
> is too hard?
>
> Find a i810 hardware should be possible, even if the hardware does not
> support SMP, can't we test the fix with preemption?
Yes, that should work too. My usua
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 4:44 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tuesday 19 October 2010 22:29:12 Greg KH wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 09:40:47PM +0200, Oliver Neukum wrote:
>> > Am Dienstag, 19. Oktober 2010, 21:37:35 schrieb Greg KH:
>> > > > So no need to clean it up for multiprocessor support.
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 11:26 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tuesday 19 October 2010, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> On Tuesday 19 October 2010 06:52:32 Dave Airlie wrote:
>> > > I might be able to find some hardware still lying around here that uses
>> > > an
>> > > i810. Not sure unless I go hunting it
On Tuesday 19 October 2010 22:41:22 Alan Cox wrote:
> > > you still need to switch off preemption.
> >
> > Hm, how would you do that from within a driver?
>
> Do we care - unless I misunderstand the current intel DRM driver handles
> the i810 as well ?
No, it does handle all devices supported by
On Tuesday 19 October 2010 22:29:12 Greg KH wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 09:40:47PM +0200, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> > Am Dienstag, 19. Oktober 2010, 21:37:35 schrieb Greg KH:
> > > > So no need to clean it up for multiprocessor support.
> > > >
> > > > http://download.intel.com/design/chipsets/d
> > you still need to switch off preemption.
>
> Hm, how would you do that from within a driver?
Do we care - unless I misunderstand the current intel DRM driver handles
the i810 as well ?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in
the body of a message to majord
On Tue, 19 Oct 2010, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > So no need to clean it up for multiprocessor support.
> > > >
> > > > http://download.intel.com/design/chipsets/datashts/29067602.pdf
> > > > http://www.intel.com/design/chipsets/specupdt/29069403.pdf
> > >
> > > Great, we can just drop all calls to lo
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 09:40:47PM +0200, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 19. Oktober 2010, 21:37:35 schrieb Greg KH:
> > > So no need to clean it up for multiprocessor support.
> > >
> > > http://download.intel.com/design/chipsets/datashts/29067602.pdf
> > > http://www.intel.com/design/chipse
Am Dienstag, 19. Oktober 2010, 21:37:35 schrieb Greg KH:
> > So no need to clean it up for multiprocessor support.
> >
> > http://download.intel.com/design/chipsets/datashts/29067602.pdf
> > http://www.intel.com/design/chipsets/specupdt/29069403.pdf
>
> Great, we can just drop all calls to lock_k
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 02:24:53PM -0400, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 17:40:04 PDT, Greg KH said:
>
> > I do have access to this hardware, but its on an old single processor
> > laptop, so any work that it would take to help do this development,
> > really wouldn't be able
On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 17:40:04 PDT, Greg KH said:
> I do have access to this hardware, but its on an old single processor
> laptop, so any work that it would take to help do this development,
> really wouldn't be able to be tested to be valid at all.
The i810 is a graphics chipset embedded on the m
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 08:39:58AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 09:26 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Tuesday 19 October 2010 06:52:32 Dave Airlie wrote:
> > > > I might be able to find some hardware still lying around here that uses
> > > > an
> > > > i810. Not sure unl
On Tuesday 19 October 2010, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tuesday 19 October 2010 06:52:32 Dave Airlie wrote:
> > > I might be able to find some hardware still lying around here that uses an
> > > i810. Not sure unless I go hunting it. But I get the impression that if
> > > the kernel is a single-CPU k
On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 09:26 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tuesday 19 October 2010 06:52:32 Dave Airlie wrote:
> > > I might be able to find some hardware still lying around here that uses an
> > > i810. Not sure unless I go hunting it. But I get the impression that if
> > > the kernel is a singl
On Tuesday 19 October 2010 06:52:32 Dave Airlie wrote:
> > I might be able to find some hardware still lying around here that uses an
> > i810. Not sure unless I go hunting it. But I get the impression that if
> > the kernel is a single-CPU kernel there is not any problem anyway? Don't
> > distros
> I might be able to find some hardware still lying around here that uses an
> i810. Not sure unless I go hunting it. But I get the impression that if
> the kernel is a single-CPU kernel there is not any problem anyway? Don't
> distros offer a non-smp kernel as an installation option in case the us
On Mon, 18 Oct 2010, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 12:45 +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 12:24 PM, Greg KH wrote:
>
> > > So, there is no need for the i830 driver? Can it just be removed
> > > because i915 works instead?
> >
> > No because it provides a
>>
>> like I'm sure the intersection of this driver and reality are getting
>> quite limited, but its still a userspace ABI change and needs to be
>> treated as such. Xorg 6.7 and XFree86 4.3 were the last users of the
>> old driver/API.
>
> Thus, you are saying that this will break for people with
On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 12:45 +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 12:24 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> > So, there is no need for the i830 driver? Can it just be removed
> > because i915 works instead?
>
> No because it provides a different userspace ABI to the i915 driver to
> a different
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 12:24 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 10:57:43AM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 10:40 AM, Greg KH wrote:
>> > On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 09:00:09AM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
>> >> On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 4:43 AM, Greg KH wrote:
>> >> > On M
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 10:57:43AM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 10:40 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 09:00:09AM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
> >> On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 4:43 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> >> > On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 05:42:06PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrot
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 10:40 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 09:00:09AM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 4:43 AM, Greg KH wrote:
>> > On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 05:42:06PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Out of the remaining modules, I guess i810/i830, adfs,
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 09:00:09AM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 4:43 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 05:42:06PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> >>
> >> Out of the remaining modules, I guess i810/i830, adfs, hpfs and ufs might
> >> end
> >> up not getting fixed
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 4:43 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 05:42:06PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>
>> Out of the remaining modules, I guess i810/i830, adfs, hpfs and ufs might end
>> up not getting fixed at all, we can either mark them non-SMP or move them
>> to drivers/staging on
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 05:42:06PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>
> Out of the remaining modules, I guess i810/i830, adfs, hpfs and ufs might end
> up not getting fixed at all, we can either mark them non-SMP or move them
> to drivers/staging once all the others are done.
I recommend moving them t
On Monday 18 October 2010 18:19:24 Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Before we get into all these fringe drivers:
>
> - I've not seen any progrss on ->get_sb BKL removal for a while
Not sure what you mean. Jan Blunck did the pushdown into get_sb
last year, which is included into linux-next through my b
Before we get into all these fringe drivers:
- I've not seen any progrss on ->get_sb BKL removal for a while
- locks.c is probably a higher priorit, too.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordom
This is a update on the current progress for the BKL removal, reflecting
what is currently in linux-next.
Maybe we can briefly discuss this at the kernel summit to decide if we
want a quick death of the BKL, i.e. fixing/disabling/staging-out the
remaining users in 2.6.38 or rather leave them there
31 matches
Mail list logo
