On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 7:42 PM, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
> On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 10:07 AM, Stéphane Marchesin
> wrote:
>> On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 5:02 PM, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
>>> On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 6:21 PM, Lucas Stach wrote:
Am Montag, den 26.05.2014, 09:45 +0300 schrieb
On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 10:07 AM, Stéphane Marchesin
wrote:
> On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 5:02 PM, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
>> On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 6:21 PM, Lucas Stach wrote:
>>> Am Montag, den 26.05.2014, 09:45 +0300 schrieb Terje Bergström:
On 23.05.2014 17:40, Alex Courbot wrote:
>
On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 5:02 PM, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
> On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 6:21 PM, Lucas Stach wrote:
>> Am Montag, den 26.05.2014, 09:45 +0300 schrieb Terje Bergström:
>>> On 23.05.2014 17:40, Alex Courbot wrote:
>>> > On 05/23/2014 06:59 PM, Lucas Stach wrote:
>>> > So after checking
On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 6:21 PM, Lucas Stach wrote:
> Am Montag, den 26.05.2014, 09:45 +0300 schrieb Terje Bergström:
>> On 23.05.2014 17:40, Alex Courbot wrote:
>> > On 05/23/2014 06:59 PM, Lucas Stach wrote:
>> > So after checking with more knowledgeable people, it turns out this is
>> > the
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 6:24 PM, Lucas Stach wrote:
>> The best way to solve this issue would be to not use the BAR at all
>> since the memory behind these objects can be directly accessed by the
>> CPU. As such it would better be mapped using ttm_bo_kmap_ttm()
>> instead. But right now this is
Am Montag, den 26.05.2014, 09:45 +0300 schrieb Terje Bergström:
> On 23.05.2014 17:40, Alex Courbot wrote:
> > On 05/23/2014 06:59 PM, Lucas Stach wrote:
> > So after checking with more knowledgeable people, it turns out this is
> > the expected behavior on ARM and BAR regions should be mapped
On 23.05.2014 17:40, Alex Courbot wrote:
> On 05/23/2014 06:59 PM, Lucas Stach wrote:
> So after checking with more knowledgeable people, it turns out this is
> the expected behavior on ARM and BAR regions should be mapped uncached
> on GK20A. All the more reasons to avoid using the BAR at all.
On 23.05.2014 17:40, Alex Courbot wrote:
On 05/23/2014 06:59 PM, Lucas Stach wrote:
So after checking with more knowledgeable people, it turns out this is
the expected behavior on ARM and BAR regions should be mapped uncached
on GK20A. All the more reasons to avoid using the BAR at all.
Am Montag, den 26.05.2014, 09:45 +0300 schrieb Terje Bergström:
On 23.05.2014 17:40, Alex Courbot wrote:
On 05/23/2014 06:59 PM, Lucas Stach wrote:
So after checking with more knowledgeable people, it turns out this is
the expected behavior on ARM and BAR regions should be mapped uncached
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 6:24 PM, Lucas Stach l.st...@pengutronix.de wrote:
The best way to solve this issue would be to not use the BAR at all
since the memory behind these objects can be directly accessed by the
CPU. As such it would better be mapped using ttm_bo_kmap_ttm()
instead. But right
On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 6:21 PM, Lucas Stach l.st...@pengutronix.de wrote:
Am Montag, den 26.05.2014, 09:45 +0300 schrieb Terje Bergström:
On 23.05.2014 17:40, Alex Courbot wrote:
On 05/23/2014 06:59 PM, Lucas Stach wrote:
So after checking with more knowledgeable people, it turns out this
On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 5:02 PM, Alexandre Courbot gnu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 6:21 PM, Lucas Stach l.st...@pengutronix.de wrote:
Am Montag, den 26.05.2014, 09:45 +0300 schrieb Terje Bergström:
On 23.05.2014 17:40, Alex Courbot wrote:
On 05/23/2014 06:59 PM, Lucas Stach
On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 10:07 AM, Stéphane Marchesin
stephane.marche...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 5:02 PM, Alexandre Courbot gnu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 6:21 PM, Lucas Stach l.st...@pengutronix.de wrote:
Am Montag, den 26.05.2014, 09:45 +0300 schrieb Terje
On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 7:42 PM, Alexandre Courbot gnu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 10:07 AM, Stéphane Marchesin
stephane.marche...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 5:02 PM, Alexandre Courbot gnu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 6:21 PM, Lucas Stach
On 05/23/2014 06:59 PM, Lucas Stach wrote:
Am Freitag, den 23.05.2014, 18:43 +0900 schrieb Alexandre Courbot:
On 05/23/2014 06:24 PM, Lucas Stach wrote:
Am Freitag, den 23.05.2014, 16:10 +0900 schrieb Alexandre Courbot:
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 7:16 PM, Lucas Stach wrote:
Am Montag, den
Am Freitag, den 23.05.2014, 18:43 +0900 schrieb Alexandre Courbot:
> On 05/23/2014 06:24 PM, Lucas Stach wrote:
> > Am Freitag, den 23.05.2014, 16:10 +0900 schrieb Alexandre Courbot:
> >> On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 7:16 PM, Lucas Stach
> >> wrote:
> >>> Am Montag, den 19.05.2014, 19:06 +0900
On 05/23/2014 06:24 PM, Lucas Stach wrote:
Am Freitag, den 23.05.2014, 16:10 +0900 schrieb Alexandre Courbot:
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 7:16 PM, Lucas Stach wrote:
Am Montag, den 19.05.2014, 19:06 +0900 schrieb Alexandre Courbot:
On 05/19/2014 06:57 PM, Lucas Stach wrote:
Am Montag, den
Am Freitag, den 23.05.2014, 16:10 +0900 schrieb Alexandre Courbot:
> On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 7:16 PM, Lucas Stach wrote:
> > Am Montag, den 19.05.2014, 19:06 +0900 schrieb Alexandre Courbot:
> >> On 05/19/2014 06:57 PM, Lucas Stach wrote:
> >> > Am Montag, den 19.05.2014, 18:46 +0900 schrieb
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 7:16 PM, Lucas Stach wrote:
> Am Montag, den 19.05.2014, 19:06 +0900 schrieb Alexandre Courbot:
>> On 05/19/2014 06:57 PM, Lucas Stach wrote:
>> > Am Montag, den 19.05.2014, 18:46 +0900 schrieb Alexandre Courbot:
>> >> This patch is not meant to be merged, but rather to
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 7:16 PM, Lucas Stach l.st...@pengutronix.de wrote:
Am Montag, den 19.05.2014, 19:06 +0900 schrieb Alexandre Courbot:
On 05/19/2014 06:57 PM, Lucas Stach wrote:
Am Montag, den 19.05.2014, 18:46 +0900 schrieb Alexandre Courbot:
This patch is not meant to be merged, but
Am Freitag, den 23.05.2014, 16:10 +0900 schrieb Alexandre Courbot:
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 7:16 PM, Lucas Stach l.st...@pengutronix.de wrote:
Am Montag, den 19.05.2014, 19:06 +0900 schrieb Alexandre Courbot:
On 05/19/2014 06:57 PM, Lucas Stach wrote:
Am Montag, den 19.05.2014, 18:46 +0900
On 05/23/2014 06:24 PM, Lucas Stach wrote:
Am Freitag, den 23.05.2014, 16:10 +0900 schrieb Alexandre Courbot:
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 7:16 PM, Lucas Stach l.st...@pengutronix.de wrote:
Am Montag, den 19.05.2014, 19:06 +0900 schrieb Alexandre Courbot:
On 05/19/2014 06:57 PM, Lucas Stach wrote:
Am Freitag, den 23.05.2014, 18:43 +0900 schrieb Alexandre Courbot:
On 05/23/2014 06:24 PM, Lucas Stach wrote:
Am Freitag, den 23.05.2014, 16:10 +0900 schrieb Alexandre Courbot:
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 7:16 PM, Lucas Stach l.st...@pengutronix.de
wrote:
Am Montag, den 19.05.2014, 19:06
On 05/23/2014 06:59 PM, Lucas Stach wrote:
Am Freitag, den 23.05.2014, 18:43 +0900 schrieb Alexandre Courbot:
On 05/23/2014 06:24 PM, Lucas Stach wrote:
Am Freitag, den 23.05.2014, 16:10 +0900 schrieb Alexandre Courbot:
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 7:16 PM, Lucas Stach l.st...@pengutronix.de
Am Montag, den 19.05.2014, 19:06 +0900 schrieb Alexandre Courbot:
> On 05/19/2014 06:57 PM, Lucas Stach wrote:
> > Am Montag, den 19.05.2014, 18:46 +0900 schrieb Alexandre Courbot:
> >> This patch is not meant to be merged, but rather to try and understand
> >> why this is needed and what a more
On 05/19/2014 06:57 PM, Lucas Stach wrote:
Am Montag, den 19.05.2014, 18:46 +0900 schrieb Alexandre Courbot:
This patch is not meant to be merged, but rather to try and understand
why this is needed and what a more suitable solution could be.
Allowing BOs to be write-cached results in the
Am Montag, den 19.05.2014, 18:46 +0900 schrieb Alexandre Courbot:
> This patch is not meant to be merged, but rather to try and understand
> why this is needed and what a more suitable solution could be.
>
> Allowing BOs to be write-cached results in the following happening when
> trying to run
This patch is not meant to be merged, but rather to try and understand
why this is needed and what a more suitable solution could be.
Allowing BOs to be write-cached results in the following happening when
trying to run any program on Tegra/GK20A:
Unhandled fault: external abort on non-linefetch
This patch is not meant to be merged, but rather to try and understand
why this is needed and what a more suitable solution could be.
Allowing BOs to be write-cached results in the following happening when
trying to run any program on Tegra/GK20A:
Unhandled fault: external abort on non-linefetch
Am Montag, den 19.05.2014, 18:46 +0900 schrieb Alexandre Courbot:
This patch is not meant to be merged, but rather to try and understand
why this is needed and what a more suitable solution could be.
Allowing BOs to be write-cached results in the following happening when
trying to run any
On 05/19/2014 06:57 PM, Lucas Stach wrote:
Am Montag, den 19.05.2014, 18:46 +0900 schrieb Alexandre Courbot:
This patch is not meant to be merged, but rather to try and understand
why this is needed and what a more suitable solution could be.
Allowing BOs to be write-cached results in the
Am Montag, den 19.05.2014, 19:06 +0900 schrieb Alexandre Courbot:
On 05/19/2014 06:57 PM, Lucas Stach wrote:
Am Montag, den 19.05.2014, 18:46 +0900 schrieb Alexandre Courbot:
This patch is not meant to be merged, but rather to try and understand
why this is needed and what a more suitable
32 matches
Mail list logo