Re: sparse and DRM on non-x86

2004-10-01 Thread Mike Mestnik
--- Keith Whitwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jon Smirl wrote: > > On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 21:11:54 +0100, Keith Whitwell > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >>Maybe there's a problem with terminology, but when we write to agp > memory in > >>the drivers, we are definitely using the GART. > > >

Re: sparse and DRM on non-x86

2004-10-01 Thread Keith Whitwell
Jon Smirl wrote: On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 21:11:54 +0100, Keith Whitwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Maybe there's a problem with terminology, but when we write to agp memory in the drivers, we are definitely using the GART. The GART is remapping your addresses, but it's still a normal system RAM access

Re: sparse and DRM on non-x86

2004-10-01 Thread Jon Smirl
On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 21:11:54 +0100, Keith Whitwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Maybe there's a problem with terminology, but when we write to agp memory in > the drivers, we are definitely using the GART. The GART is remapping your addresses, but it's still a normal system RAM access. > Keith >

Re: sparse and DRM on non-x86

2004-10-01 Thread Keith Whitwell
Jon Smirl wrote: On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 18:54:50 +0100, Keith Whitwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Jon Smirl wrote: On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 18:05:29 +0100, Keith Whitwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Second the DRM code always treats the framebuffer as if it is in IOMEM. But what about IGP type devices wher

Re: sparse and DRM on non-x86

2004-10-01 Thread Mike Mestnik
--- Keith Whitwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jon Smirl wrote: > > On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 18:05:29 +0100, Keith Whitwell > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >>>Second the DRM code always treats the framebuffer as if it is in > >>>IOMEM. But what about IGP type devices where the framebuffer is in

Re: sparse and DRM on non-x86

2004-10-01 Thread Mike Mestnik
--- Jon Smirl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 18:05:29 +0100, Keith Whitwell > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > This implies that DRM should be passing back two distinct handle > > > types, one for normal and one for IOMEM, so that the user space app > > > will use the correct ac

Re: sparse and DRM on non-x86

2004-10-01 Thread Jon Smirl
On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 18:54:50 +0100, Keith Whitwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jon Smirl wrote: > > On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 18:05:29 +0100, Keith Whitwell > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >>>Second the DRM code always treats the framebuffer as if it is in > >>>IOMEM. But what about IGP type device

Re: sparse and DRM on non-x86

2004-10-01 Thread Jim Gettys
I note that we (HP) have just nuked our future IA64 workstations; and as we shipped the largest volume of such machines (by far), constraints there will be use of graphics cards on servers, rather than any volume... - Jim > I've seen stuff on the web that suggests

Re: sparse and DRM on non-x86

2004-10-01 Thread Keith Whitwell
Jon Smirl wrote: On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 18:05:29 +0100, Keith Whitwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Second the DRM code always treats the framebuffer as if it is in IOMEM. But what about IGP type devices where the framebuffer is in main memory? These only exist on the x86 so treating their framebuffer a

Re: sparse and DRM on non-x86

2004-10-01 Thread Keith Whitwell
Jon Smirl wrote: On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 18:05:29 +0100, Keith Whitwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: This implies that DRM should be passing back two distinct handle types, one for normal and one for IOMEM, so that the user space app will use the correct access function. This is also a pretty good argume

Re: sparse and DRM on non-x86

2004-10-01 Thread Jon Smirl
On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 18:05:29 +0100, Keith Whitwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Second the DRM code always treats the framebuffer as if it is in > > IOMEM. But what about IGP type devices where the framebuffer is in > > main memory? These only exist on the x86 so treating their framebuffer > > as

Re: sparse and DRM on non-x86

2004-10-01 Thread Jon Smirl
On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 18:05:29 +0100, Keith Whitwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > This implies that DRM should be passing back two distinct handle > > types, one for normal and one for IOMEM, so that the user space app > > will use the correct access function. This is also a pretty good > > argumen

Re: sparse and DRM on non-x86

2004-10-01 Thread Keith Whitwell
Jon Smirl wrote: I just spent sometime looking at about a thousand errors from sparse in the DRM code. There are two main problems, first DRM makes use of opaque handles which are passed to user space. These handles can be to normal or iomem memory. Since the handles are typeless this generates a l

sparse and DRM on non-x86

2004-10-01 Thread Jon Smirl
I just spent sometime looking at about a thousand errors from sparse in the DRM code. There are two main problems, first DRM makes use of opaque handles which are passed to user space. These handles can be to normal or iomem memory. Since the handles are typeless this generates a lot of sparse err