From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754788AbZLAXxL (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Dec 2009 18:53:11 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754755AbZLAXxK (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Dec 2009 18:53:10 -0500 Received: from mail-iw0-f171.google.com ([209.85.223.171]:65203 "EHLO mail-iw0-f171.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754748AbZLAXxK (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Dec 2009 18:53:10 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=n5anm1nn5k0W7yGTe7G/T2ahdgk1KU5+KoJVEkvjpudqc2Q9VSb9/F+xHrNkJaX7xu zreRaYfxOAbeRa1ClUgrcFF2X6mVihnj4ANn/RgxmDreVttOLdZiHXVJ8H+RJQ5cHKFw WSdSm2lWb6s+Rj0VjBDhQaCvbGb+BNuRuNjSk= MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1258723764-4399-1-git-send-email-jglisse@redhat.com> References: <1258723764-4399-1-git-send-email-jglisse@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 09:53:15 +1000 Message-ID: <21d7e9970912011553v391fa720j140a8c5ea3f3c06@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: From: Dave Airlie To: Jerome Glisse Cc: dri-devel@lists.sf.net, LKML , Thomas Hellstrom Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 11:29 PM, Jerome Glisse wrote: > This patch series add ttm range validation function. Aim is to > include this in 2.6.33 so i have time to iron out issue, comments. I missed these first time around, Thomas if you have any opinions on the TTM stuff please see if you can take a look. > ttm: > I duplicated a bunch of ttm functions but now i think, best would > be to add range to all function and use free list if range cover > all the manager space. Doing so we might also be able to simplify > mem_space alocation into a simpler function like ttm_bo_mem_space_range > > radeon: > The second patch is a rework/cleanup of radeon object, it solves > few issues along the way (i can't remember them now after fews > days testing the patches). Biggest change is that we now rely > on BO being validated before doing any change to radeon bo structure. > As with any big patch i might introduce regressions, so far after > testing on AGP:R1XX,R2XX,R3XX,R6XX PCIE:R3XX,R4XX,R5XX,R6XX,R7XX > and RS480,RS690 i didn't found anythings obvious (test being X + > glxgears + compiz(on hw which support it) + suspend/resume). I'll try and take a look at this here it doesn't seem to depend on the first patch so I can push it separate if needed. Dave. > > Last patch is smaller, it just use the interface introduced by > the first patch. > >