From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ben Widawsky <ben@bwidawsk.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] drm/i915: Reserve space for FBC (fbcon)
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 12:41:47 -0700
Message-ID: <20140619194146.GA1081@bwidawsk.net>
References: <1403204773-7112-1-git-send-email-benjamin.widawsky@intel.com>
 <1403204773-7112-4-git-send-email-benjamin.widawsky@intel.com>
 <20140619192811.GD8476@nuc-i3427.alporthouse.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org>
Received: from mail.bwidawsk.net (bwidawsk.net [166.78.191.112])
 by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 612F56E927
 for <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>; Thu, 19 Jun 2014 12:41:55 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20140619192811.GD8476@nuc-i3427.alporthouse.com>
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: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>, Ben Widawsky <benjamin.widawsky@intel.com>, Intel GFX <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>, Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org>
List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org

On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 08:28:11PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 12:06:13PM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> > This is one part in a few fixes needed to make FBC work with limited
> > stolen memory and large resolution displays. It is not the full
> > solution, but one (easy) step.
> > 
> > The patch is straight-forward, it attempts to check there will be room
> > for FBC before trying to "reclaim"
> 
> But it special cases one particular allocation. Why don't you just
> reserve stolen upfront for FBC? Compute the maximum buffer size the
> hardware could support and try to claim it during stolen init.
> -Chris
> 

This was my initial thought actually. I didn't want to have to rework
all of our initialization sequence, and verify I didn't break anything.
In particular I wasn't sure what happens when we try to recover the fb
from stolen (if it fails).

In particular, there is a logical conflict between fastboot and fbc -
and one needs to assign the preference over who gets stolen memory
first. Also, when I wrote this patch, I was unaware that the reclaimed
fb by itself was enough to not allow the full CFB to fit (though it will
with the 3 patches before this)

Anyway, consider this the demonstration of the problem, and [my only]
half-attempt to fix it. Hopefully you guys can fix it properly.

-- 
Ben Widawsky, Intel Open Source Technology Center