On Thu, Jan 12, 2023 at 10:04:48AM +0100, Thomas Zimmermann wrote: > Hi > > Am 11.01.23 um 16:41 schrieb Daniel Vetter: > > This one nukes all framebuffers, which is a bit much. In reality > > gma500 is igpu and never shipped with anything discrete, so there should > > not be any difference. > > > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > drivers/gpu/drm/gma500/psb_drv.c | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/gma500/psb_drv.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/gma500/psb_drv.c > > index cd9c73f5a64a..9b0daf90dc50 100644 > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/gma500/psb_drv.c > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/gma500/psb_drv.c > > @@ -429,7 +429,7 @@ static int psb_pci_probe(struct pci_dev *pdev, const struct pci_device_id *ent) > > * TODO: Refactor psb_driver_load() to map vdc_reg earlier. Then we > > * might be able to read the framebuffer range from the device. > > */ > > - ret = drm_aperture_remove_framebuffers(true, &driver); > > + ret = drm_aperture_remove_conflicting_pci_framebuffers(pdev, &driver); > > This does not work. The comment just above the changed line explains why. > The device uses shared memory similar to other integrated Intel chips. The > console is somewhere in a 16 MiB range, which has been stolen by the BIOS > from main memory. There's only a 1 MiB memory range on the device to program > the device. Unless you want to refactor as described, this call has to cover > the whole memory for now. Uh. So it's maybe not so pretty, but what if I just call both functions? That way we get the vga handling through the pci one, and the "make sure there's no fb left" through the other one. Plus comment of course. Otherwise we'd need to somehow keep the vga stuff in the non-pci paths, and that just feels all kinds of wrong to me. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch
