On 5/12/21 3:05 PM, Christian König wrote:
Am 12.05.21 um 15:02 schrieb Thomas Hellström:
On Wed, 2021-05-12 at 09:09 +0200, Christian König wrote:
Am 12.05.21 um 09:05 schrieb Thomas Hellström:
On Wed, 2021-05-12 at 08:57 +0200, Christian König wrote:
Am 11.05.21 um 16:28 schrieb Thomas
Am 12.05.21 um 15:02 schrieb Thomas Hellström:
On Wed, 2021-05-12 at 09:09 +0200, Christian König wrote:
Am 12.05.21 um 09:05 schrieb Thomas Hellström:
On Wed, 2021-05-12 at 08:57 +0200, Christian König wrote:
Am 11.05.21 um 16:28 schrieb Thomas Hellström:
On 5/11/21 4:09 PM, Christian König
On Wed, 2021-05-12 at 09:09 +0200, Christian König wrote:
> Am 12.05.21 um 09:05 schrieb Thomas Hellström:
> > On Wed, 2021-05-12 at 08:57 +0200, Christian König wrote:
> > > Am 11.05.21 um 16:28 schrieb Thomas Hellström:
> > > > On 5/11/21 4:09 PM, Christian König wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Am
Hi, Matthew,
Thanks for reviewing!
On 5/12/21 1:45 PM, Matthew Auld wrote:
On Tue, 11 May 2021 at 14:26, Thomas Hellström
wrote:
Most logical place to introduce TTM buffer objects is as an i915
gem object backend. We need to add some ops to account for added
functionality like delayed delete
On Tue, 11 May 2021 at 14:26, Thomas Hellström
wrote:
>
> Most logical place to introduce TTM buffer objects is as an i915
> gem object backend. We need to add some ops to account for added
> functionality like delayed delete and LRU list manipulation.
>
> Initially we support only LMEM and
Am 12.05.21 um 09:05 schrieb Thomas Hellström:
On Wed, 2021-05-12 at 08:57 +0200, Christian König wrote:
Am 11.05.21 um 16:28 schrieb Thomas Hellström:
On 5/11/21 4:09 PM, Christian König wrote:
Am 11.05.21 um 16:06 schrieb Thomas Hellström (Intel):
On 5/11/21 3:58 PM, Christian König
On Wed, 2021-05-12 at 08:57 +0200, Christian König wrote:
> Am 11.05.21 um 16:28 schrieb Thomas Hellström:
> >
> > On 5/11/21 4:09 PM, Christian König wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Am 11.05.21 um 16:06 schrieb Thomas Hellström (Intel):
> > > >
> > > > On 5/11/21 3:58 PM, Christian König wrote:
> >
Am 11.05.21 um 16:28 schrieb Thomas Hellström:
On 5/11/21 4:09 PM, Christian König wrote:
Am 11.05.21 um 16:06 schrieb Thomas Hellström (Intel):
On 5/11/21 3:58 PM, Christian König wrote:
Am 11.05.21 um 15:25 schrieb Thomas Hellström:
Most logical place to introduce TTM buffer objects is
On 5/11/21 4:09 PM, Christian König wrote:
Am 11.05.21 um 16:06 schrieb Thomas Hellström (Intel):
On 5/11/21 3:58 PM, Christian König wrote:
Am 11.05.21 um 15:25 schrieb Thomas Hellström:
Most logical place to introduce TTM buffer objects is as an i915
gem object backend. We need to add
Am 11.05.21 um 16:06 schrieb Thomas Hellström (Intel):
On 5/11/21 3:58 PM, Christian König wrote:
Am 11.05.21 um 15:25 schrieb Thomas Hellström:
Most logical place to introduce TTM buffer objects is as an i915
gem object backend. We need to add some ops to account for added
functionality
On 5/11/21 3:58 PM, Christian König wrote:
Am 11.05.21 um 15:25 schrieb Thomas Hellström:
Most logical place to introduce TTM buffer objects is as an i915
gem object backend. We need to add some ops to account for added
functionality like delayed delete and LRU list manipulation.
Initially
Am 11.05.21 um 15:25 schrieb Thomas Hellström:
Most logical place to introduce TTM buffer objects is as an i915
gem object backend. We need to add some ops to account for added
functionality like delayed delete and LRU list manipulation.
Initially we support only LMEM and SYSTEM memory, but
Most logical place to introduce TTM buffer objects is as an i915
gem object backend. We need to add some ops to account for added
functionality like delayed delete and LRU list manipulation.
Initially we support only LMEM and SYSTEM memory, but SYSTEM
(which in this case means evicted LMEM
13 matches
Mail list logo
