On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 04:05:01PM +0200, Joonas Lahtinen wrote: > On pe, 2017-01-06 at 15:25 +0000, Chris Wilson wrote: > > Commit message missing. > > > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > <SNIP> > > > @@ -3360,11 +3360,10 @@ int i915_gem_object_attach_phys(struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj, > > int i915_gem_open(struct drm_device *dev, struct drm_file *file); > > void i915_gem_release(struct drm_device *dev, struct drm_file *file); > > > > -u64 i915_gem_get_ggtt_size(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv, u64 size, > > +u32 i915_gem_get_ggtt_size(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv, u32 size, > > We still seem to have some type bouncing going on. Since we have restricted ggtt to only be u32, I'm correcting the interfaces as I go. > > @@ -3577,7 +3573,7 @@ i915_gem_object_unpin_from_display_plane(struct i915_vma *vma) > > return; > > > > if (--vma->obj->pin_display == 0) > > - vma->display_alignment = 0; > > + vma->display_alignment = 4096; > > Is there a case when the max() become zero? Do we have Bugzilla or is > this just preventive action. It's a change to accommodate this patch to simplify the alignment compuation as a series of max(). -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
