On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 5:41 AM, Christian König
<deathsimple@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Am 16.07.2014 11:40, schrieb Michel Dänzer:
>
>> From: Michel Dänzer <michel.daenzer@xxxxxxx>
>>
>> These clutter up dmesg during piglit runs. Userspace generally deals
>> gracefully with this failure.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Michel Dänzer <michel.daenzer@xxxxxxx>
>
>
> Reviewed-by: Christian König <christian.koenig@xxxxxxx>
>
> Already wanted to suggest the same thing,
Applied to my 3.17 tree. Is there any reason we can't remove or relax
this limit check in general? At the very least I think we can remove
the visible vram limit.
Alex
> Christian.
>
>
>> ---
>> drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_gem.c | 4 ++--
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_gem.c
>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_gem.c
>> index 07292aa..8584e43 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_gem.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_gem.c
>> @@ -58,8 +58,8 @@ int radeon_gem_object_create(struct radeon_device *rdev,
>> int size,
>> /* maximun bo size is the minimun btw visible vram and gtt size */
>> max_size = min(rdev->mc.visible_vram_size, rdev->mc.gtt_size);
>> if (size > max_size) {
>> - printk(KERN_WARNING "%s:%d alloc size %dMb bigger than
>> %ldMb limit\n",
>> - __func__, __LINE__, size >> 20, max_size >> 20);
>> + DRM_DEBUG("Allocation size %dMb bigger than %ldMb
>> limit\n",
>> + size >> 20, max_size >> 20);
>> return -ENOMEM;
>> }
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dri-devel mailing list
> dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
