On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 05:18:15PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 10:17:44PM +0100, Dave Gordon wrote:
> > On 08/10/15 21:50, Wayne Boyer wrote:
> > >From: Chris Wilson
> > >
> > >A long time ago (before 3.14) we relied on a permanent pinning of the
> > >ifbdev to lock the f
On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 10:17:44PM +0100, Dave Gordon wrote:
> On 08/10/15 21:50, Wayne Boyer wrote:
> >From: Chris Wilson
> >
> >A long time ago (before 3.14) we relied on a permanent pinning of the
> >ifbdev to lock the fb in place inside the GGTT. However, the
> >introduction of stealing the BI
Another observation that occurred to me only after sending away my
previous message (sorry):
On Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 01:50:21PM -0700, Wayne Boyer wrote:
> From: Chris Wilson
>
> A long time ago (before 3.14) we relied on a permanent pinning of the
> ifbdev to lock the fb in place inside the GGT
Hi,
On Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 01:50:21PM -0700, Wayne Boyer wrote:
> From: Chris Wilson
>
> A long time ago (before 3.14) we relied on a permanent pinning of the
> ifbdev to lock the fb in place inside the GGTT. However, the
> introduction of stealing the BIOS framebuffer and reusing its address i
On 08/10/15 21:50, Wayne Boyer wrote:
From: Chris Wilson
A long time ago (before 3.14) we relied on a permanent pinning of the
ifbdev to lock the fb in place inside the GGTT. However, the
introduction of stealing the BIOS framebuffer and reusing its address in
the GGTT for the fbdev has muddied
On Fri, 09 Oct 2015, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 01:50:21PM -0700, Wayne Boyer wrote:
>> From: Chris Wilson
>>
>> A long time ago (before 3.14) we relied on a permanent pinning of the
>> ifbdev to lock the fb in place inside the GGTT. However, the
>> introduction of stealing th
On Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 01:50:21PM -0700, Wayne Boyer wrote:
> From: Chris Wilson
>
> A long time ago (before 3.14) we relied on a permanent pinning of the
> ifbdev to lock the fb in place inside the GGTT. However, the
> introduction of stealing the BIOS framebuffer and reusing its address in
> t
On 10/08/2015 02:07 AM, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 07, 2015 at 11:34:17AM -0700, Wayne Boyer wrote:
>> From: Chris Wilson
>>
>> A long time ago (before 3.14) we relied on a permanent pinning of the
>> ifbdev to lock the fb in place inside the GGTT. However, the
>> introduction of stealing t
On Wed, Oct 07, 2015 at 11:34:17AM -0700, Wayne Boyer wrote:
> From: Chris Wilson
>
> A long time ago (before 3.14) we relied on a permanent pinning of the
> ifbdev to lock the fb in place inside the GGTT. However, the
> introduction of stealing the BIOS framebuffer and reusing its address in
> t
On Fri, Oct 02, 2015 at 10:16:26PM +, Boyer, Wayne wrote:
> On 8/26/15, 1:23 AM, Deepak wrote:
>
>
> >
> >
> >On 08/25/2015 10:18 PM, Chris Wilson wrote:
> >> A long time ago (before 3.14) we relied on a permanent pinning of the
> >> ifbdev to lock the fb in place inside the GGTT. However, t
On 8/26/15, 1:23 AM, Deepak wrote:
>
>
>On 08/25/2015 10:18 PM, Chris Wilson wrote:
>> A long time ago (before 3.14) we relied on a permanent pinning of the
>> ifbdev to lock the fb in place inside the GGTT. However, the
>> introduction of stealing the BIOS framebuffer and reusing its address in
On 08/25/2015 10:18 PM, Chris Wilson wrote:
A long time ago (before 3.14) we relied on a permanent pinning of the
ifbdev to lock the fb in place inside the GGTT. However, the
introduction of stealing the BIOS framebuffer and reusing its address in
the GGTT for the fbdev has muddied waters and w
12 matches
Mail list logo