On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 10:34:13AM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote: > On 2012-08-24 01:12, Chris Wilson wrote: > >The current layout is to place the per-process tables at the end > >of the > >GTT. However, this is currently using a hardcoded maximum size for > >the GTT > >and not taking in account limitations imposed by the BIOS. Use the > >value > >for the total number of entries allocated in the table as provided by > >the configuration registers. > > > >Reported-by: Matthew Garrett <m...@redhat.com> > >Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk> > >Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vet...@ffwll.ch> > >Cc: Ben Widawsky <b...@bwidawsk.net> > >Cc: Matthew Garret <m...@redhat.com> > > details... Can someone remind me why we didn't put it at the bottom? > Reviewed-by: Ben Widawsky <b...@bwidawsk.net>
Becaus the bottom is mappable, which is a contended resources (compared to the entire gtt). Or so was my thinking at least. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Mail: dan...@ffwll.ch Mobile: +41 (0)79 365 57 48 _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
