From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/i915/bdw: Don't allow the FBC base to
 be 0
Date: Fri, 2 May 2014 21:35:20 +0100
Message-ID: <20140502203520.GA9420@nuc-i3427.alporthouse.com>
References: <1398995274-1317-1-git-send-email-benjamin.widawsky@intel.com>
 <20140502081927.GR18465@intel.com>
 <20140502083811.GA21695@nuc-i3427.alporthouse.com>
 <20140502130024.GT18465@intel.com>
 <20140502170000.GA11639@bwidawsk.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Return-path: <intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org>
Received: from fireflyinternet.com (mail.fireflyinternet.com [87.106.93.118])
 by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF1306E57A
 for <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>; Fri,  2 May 2014 13:35:31 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20140502170000.GA11639@bwidawsk.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/options/intel-gfx>,
 <mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/intel-gfx>
List-Post: <mailto:intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>
List-Help: <mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx>,
 <mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org
Sender: "Intel-gfx" <intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org>
To: Ben Widawsky <ben@bwidawsk.net>
Cc: Intel GFX <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>, Art Runyan <arthur.j.runyan@intel.com>, Ben Widawsky <benjamin.widawsky@intel.com>
List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org

On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 10:00:01AM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 04:00:25PM +0300, Ville Syrj=E4l=E4 wrote:
> > On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 09:38:11AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > > On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 11:19:27AM +0300, Ville Syrj=E4l=E4 wrote:
> > > > On Thu, May 01, 2014 at 06:47:54PM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> > > > > "Restriction :
> > > > > The offset must be greater than 4K bytes, avoiding the first 4KB =
of
> > > > > stolen memory."
> > > > =

> > > > Isn't this a more generic issue that we must avoid the first 4k? If=
 so
> > > > I think we should just reserve the first 4k permanently at driver i=
nit
> > > > time.
> =

> Is anyone opposed to this plan? Realistically it won't make a
> difference.
> =

> > > =

> > > What? On many machines the vga framebuffer is allocated from offset 0=
. I
> > > think some explanation is in order.
> =

> The chopped off part of the commit message explained it (if I understood
> your point).

How do we handle the inherited fb if it starts at offset 0?
-Chris

-- =

Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre