Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: initialize dpio_lock spin lock

2012-09-08 Thread Ben Widawsky
On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 15:50:55 +0300 Jani Nikula jani.nik...@intel.com wrote: From: Alexander Shishkin alexander.shish...@linux.intel.com This thing is killing lockdep. Signed-off-by: Alexander Shishkin alexander.shish...@linux.intel.com [Jani: move the init next to the other spin lock

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] intel: properly test for HAS_LLC

2012-09-08 Thread Ben Widawsky
On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 11:18:53 +0200 Daniel Vetter daniel.vet...@ffwll.ch wrote: If the kernel supports the test, we need to check the param. Copypasta from the above checks that only look at the return value. Interesting how much one can get such a simple interface wrong. Issue created in

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: Prevent signals from interrupting memory recovery

2012-09-08 Thread Ben Widawsky
On Tue, 4 Sep 2012 21:00:58 +0100 Chris Wilson ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk wrote: Just a spark of an idea to see if this is valid. Given extreme memory pressure where we must zap our own caches and bound buffers or else we fail to allocate a structure, we have a choice of propagating that

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: Prevent signals from interrupting memory recovery

2012-09-08 Thread Chris Wilson
On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 23:38:05 -0700, Ben Widawsky b...@bwidawsk.net wrote: On Tue, 4 Sep 2012 21:00:58 +0100 Chris Wilson ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk wrote: Just a spark of an idea to see if this is valid. Given extreme memory pressure where we must zap our own caches and bound buffers or

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: initialize dpio_lock spin lock

2012-09-08 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Fri, Sep 07, 2012 at 11:20:44PM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote: On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 15:50:55 +0300 Jani Nikula jani.nik...@intel.com wrote: From: Alexander Shishkin alexander.shish...@linux.intel.com This thing is killing lockdep. Signed-off-by: Alexander Shishkin

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/4] drm/i915: extract gmbus_wait_hw_status

2012-09-08 Thread Ben Widawsky
On 2012-09-06 00:09, Daniel Vetter wrote: The gmbus interrupt generation is rather fiddly: We can only ever enable one interrupt source (but we always want to check for NAK in addition to the real bit). And the bits in the gmbus status register don't map at all to the bis in the irq register.

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: fixup the plane-pipe fixup code

2012-09-08 Thread Daniel Vetter
We need to check whether the _other plane is on our pipe, not whether our plane is on the other pipe. Otherwise if not both pipes/planes are active, we won't properly clean up the mess and set up our desired plane-pipe mapping. v2: Fixup the logic, I've totally fumbled it. Noticed by Chris

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: fixup the plane-pipe fixup code

2012-09-08 Thread Chris Wilson
On Sat, 8 Sep 2012 18:14:52 +0200, Daniel Vetter daniel.vet...@ffwll.ch wrote: We need to check whether the _other plane is on our pipe, not whether our plane is on the other pipe. Otherwise if not both pipes/planes are active, we won't properly clean up the mess and set up our desired

[Intel-gfx] [ANNOUNCE] xf86-video-intel 2.20.7

2012-09-08 Thread Chris Wilson
Continuing the flurry of releases, this week saw the release of xorg-1.13 bringing with it the first steps towards hotpluggable gpu support and the ability to offload DRI rendering onto other GPUs. In light of that advance, this release includes the support code by Dave Airlie to integrate PRIME

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: reorder setup sequence to have irqs for output setup

2012-09-08 Thread Ben Widawsky
On 2012-09-06 06:43, Daniel Vetter wrote: Otherwise the newshiny irq-driven gmbus and dp aux code won't work that well. Noticed since the dp aux code doesn't have an automatic fallback with a timeout (since the hw provides for that already). Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter daniel.vet...@ffwll.ch