Hi,
So currently the TTM interface allows the user specify a cacheable
allocation, and on Intel hardware this gets conflated with using the intel
snooped memory type in the GART. This is bad as the intel snooped memory
type comes with its own set of special rules and sucks for lots of things.
Dave Airlie wrote:
>Hi,
>
>So currently the TTM interface allows the user specify a cacheable
>allocation, and on Intel hardware this gets conflated with using the intel
>snooped memory type in the GART. This is bad as the intel snooped memory
>type comes with its own set of special rules and s
> Dave, I'd like to see the flag DRM_BO_FLAG_CACHED really mean cache-coherent
> memory, that is cache coherent also while visible to the GPU. There are HW
> implementations out there (Poulsbo at least) where this option actually seems
> to work, althought it's considerably slower for things like
Dave Airlie wrote:
>> Dave, I'd like to see the flag DRM_BO_FLAG_CACHED really mean cache-coherent
>> memory, that is cache coherent also while visible to the GPU. There are HW
>> implementations out there (Poulsbo at least) where this option actually seems
>> to work, althought it's considerably s
Dave Airlie wrote:
>> Dave, I'd like to see the flag DRM_BO_FLAG_CACHED really mean cache-coherent
>> memory, that is cache coherent also while visible to the GPU. There are HW
>> implementations out there (Poulsbo at least) where this option actually seems
>> to work, althought it's considerably s
> >
> OK. We're using this functionality in Poulsbo, so we should probably
> sort this out to avoid breaking things.
Okay I'll try and fix it back up tomorrow..
> Yes, Eric seems to have the same opinion. I'm not quite sure I understand the
> reasoning behind it.
> Is it the added complexity
Dave Airlie wrote:
>>>
>>>
>> OK. We're using this functionality in Poulsbo, so we should probably
>> sort this out to avoid breaking things.
>>
>
> Okay I'll try and fix it back up tomorrow..
>
>
>> Yes, Eric seems to have the same opinion. I'm not quite sure I understand the
>>
Dave Airlie wrote:
>
>
>
OK. We're using this functionality in Poulsbo, so we should probably
sort this out to avoid breaking things.
>>>Okay I'll try and fix it back up tomorrow..
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>I've attached my first attempt a
> >>>
> >> OK. We're using this functionality in Poulsbo, so we should probably
> >> sort this out to avoid breaking things.
> >>
> >
> > Okay I'll try and fix it back up tomorrow..
> >
I've attached my first attempt at fixing this up but it messes up by the
time the flags hit the t
