On to, 2016-08-25 at 09:27 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 11:00:54AM +0300, Joonas Lahtinen wrote: > > > > On ke, 2016-08-24 at 20:42 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > > > > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c > > > @@ -355,6 +355,14 @@ static int i915_getparam(struct drm_device *dev, void *data, > > > case I915_PARAM_MIN_EU_IN_POOL: > > > value = INTEL_INFO(dev)->min_eu_in_pool; > > > break; > > > + case I915_PARAM_MMAP_GTT_VERSION: > > > + /* 0 - Objects have to be smaller than aperture, > > > + * all simultaneous users have to fit within the > > > + * available space within the aperture. > > > + * 1 - Objects can any size, and X,Y or untiled > > > + */ > > > + value = 1; > > The actual test would be if this function call succeeds, though. > > > > value = 0 would never be returned, so I'm not sure it'll be useful to > > document as such. So I might document as "Failure to execute the query > > means..." > It's also going to get crowded if we put all snippets of ABI information > here. Yep, but 0 is never returned so the documentation is incorrect as is. Better clearly describe the that before the parameter was introduced conditions were as above. > > If I > > #define I915_MMAP_GTT_VERSION 1 > /* ... */ > > at the start of i915_gem_fault() then hopefully we might remember to > update it. +1 on this. Regards, Joonas > -Chris > -- Joonas Lahtinen Open Source Technology Center Intel Corporation _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
