On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 11:04 AM, James Simmons <jsimm...@infradead.org> wrote: > >> >> Attached is patch to fix this, so sorry about that, i must have lost my >> >> agp change along the way when working on the patchset. This patch is not >> >> extensively tested, i will do more testing tomorrow on more gpu, might >> >> even found an nvidia agp i can try. Again sorry for breaking this. >> > >> > Thanks for the fix up. I was wondering if this purposed change could be >> > done instead. Its the same as your fix up except that you pass in the >> > ttm_buffer_object for tt_create. The reason is I really like to have the >> > ability to have more than one back end to grab a bunch pf pages from. >> > Currently its AGP or something else. On some of my embedded devices the >> > AGP space is not very large and can be exhausted very quickly. Those >> > embedded devices have DMA engines I could use instead. >> >> This change violate the layer separation ttm wish to preserve see : >> http://www.mail-archive.com/dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org/msg16443.html >> >> You can achieve what you want by either adding a new domain so you would have >> system, vram, agp, pcidma and object can be bound to one and only one. Or you >> can hack your own agp ttm backend that could bind bo to agp or pci or >> both at the same time depending on what you want to achieve. > > The question is how does one know which domain you want in tt_create. > Currenty drivers are using there dev_priv but if you have have more than > one option available how does one choose? Would you be okay with passing > in a domain flag? >
Well i agree that something would be usefull there so the driver know which bind/unbind function it should use. Thomas i would prefer passing the bo to the tt_create callback but a flag is the minimum we need. Cheers, Jerome _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
