On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 19:56:51 +1000
skeg...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Ben Skeggs bske...@redhat.com
There was at least one situation we could get into in the old code where
we'd end up overrunning the push buffer with the jumps back to the start
of the buffer in an attempt to get more space.
On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 12:30:03 +0200
Maarten Maathuis madman2...@gmail.com wrote:
dma.max is adjusted to always have space for the jump.
Ah, then that should be documented somewhere.
But if that is the case, why:
chan-dma.free = get - chan-dma.cur - 1;
The extra space is not needed in this
From: Ben Skeggs bske...@redhat.com
There was at least one situation we could get into in the old code where
we'd end up overrunning the push buffer with the jumps back to the start
of the buffer in an attempt to get more space.
In addition, the new code prevents misdetecting a GPU hang by
The timeout is too short, the gallium driver will easily trigger an assert.
Maarten.
___
Nouveau mailing list
Nouveau@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/nouveau
On Fri, 2009-08-21 at 21:30 +0200, Maarten Maathuis wrote:
The timeout is too short, the gallium driver will easily trigger an assert.
Oops, that was a typo. Thanks, fixed.
Any other comments?
Maarten.
___
Nouveau mailing list
On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 1:26 AM, Ben Skeggsskeg...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, 2009-08-21 at 21:30 +0200, Maarten Maathuis wrote:
The timeout is too short, the gallium driver will easily trigger an assert.
Oops, that was a typo. Thanks, fixed.
Any other comments?
Not really, it's been running
