[Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/mm: Don't WARN if drm_mm_reserve_node

2014-04-07 Thread Daniel Vetter
Jesse's BIOS fb reconstruction code actually relies on the -ENOSPC return value to detect overlapping framebuffers (which the bios uses always when lighting up more than one screen). All this fanciness happens in intel_alloc_plane_obj in intel_display.c. Since no one else uses this we can savely r

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/mm: Don't WARN if drm_mm_reserve_node

2014-04-07 Thread Jesse Barnes
On Mon, 7 Apr 2014 23:25:20 +0200 Daniel Vetter wrote: > Jesse's BIOS fb reconstruction code actually relies on the -ENOSPC > return value to detect overlapping framebuffers (which the bios uses > always when lighting up more than one screen). All this fanciness > happens in intel_alloc_plane_ob

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/mm: Don't WARN if drm_mm_reserve_node

2014-04-08 Thread Ben Widawsky
On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 10:13:13PM -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote: > On Mon, 7 Apr 2014 23:25:20 +0200 > Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > Jesse's BIOS fb reconstruction code actually relies on the -ENOSPC > > return value to detect overlapping framebuffers (which the bios uses > > always when lighting up m

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/mm: Don't WARN if drm_mm_reserve_node

2014-04-08 Thread Chris Wilson
On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 10:21:44AM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote: > I am not convinced this is the correct solution. At least the way we > used this interface, it isn't meant to ever fail. I also didn't look > into exactly why we depend an ENOSPC return. That sounds fragile to me, > especially for a p

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/mm: Don't WARN if drm_mm_reserve_node

2014-04-09 Thread Ben Widawsky
On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 07:25:37AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 10:21:44AM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote: > > I am not convinced this is the correct solution. At least the way we > > used this interface, it isn't meant to ever fail. I also didn't look > > into exactly why we de