On Sun, 28 Oct 2012 09:48:35 +0000 Chris Wilson <ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk> wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 14:58:45 -0700, Ben Widawsky <b...@bwidawsk.net> wrote: > > On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 18:03:09 +0100 > > Chris Wilson <ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > A few of the earlier registers where enlarged and so the Base Data of > > > Stolen Memory Register (BDSM) was pushed to 0xb0. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk> > > > Reviewed-by: Jesse Barnes <jbar...@virtuousgeek.org> > > > > This patch seems irrelevant to me. I have a i915_stolen_to_phys which > > already looks correct (git blame shows you last updated it in April). > > > > Can you help unconfuse me? > > As the patch suggests the current registers being used by stolen-to-phys > are incorrect for SNB+. > -Chris > It looks like all you've done here is fix up the bug you left from patch2. -- Ben Widawsky, Intel Open Source Technology Center _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
