Am 16.07.2014 18:12, schrieb Alex Deucher:
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.
Already thought about that as well. Since we fixed the fallback to GTT
if a buffer won't fit into VRAM on CPU access I offhand don't see any
obstacle to relaxing this test.
We should just test if that fallback can handle to larges buffers
gracefully.
Christian.
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
