On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 04:38:47PM +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 02:20:52PM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 03:59:19PM +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > > > On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 06:19:07PM -0200, Paulo Zanoni wrote: > > > > The i915_stolen_to_physical() function has 'unsigned long' as its > > > > return type but it returns the 'base' variable, which is of type > > > > 'u32'. The only place where this function is called assigns the > > > > returned value to dev_priv->mm.stolen_base, which is of type > > > > 'phys_addr_t'. The return value is actually a physical address and > > > > everything else in the stolen memory code seems to be using > > > > phys_addr_t, so fix i915_stolen_to_physical() to use phys_addr_t. > > > > > > Size of phys_addr_t depends on PAE no? So what if someone were to boot > > > a !PAE kernel on a machine where stolen lives somewhere >4GiB? > > > > dma_addr_t should be correct there, right? And in effect we do regard > > this as only dma accessible, so the white lie would have some nice > > semantic benefits. > > config ARCH_PHYS_ADDR_T_64BIT > def_bool y > depends on X86_64 || X86_PAE > > config ARCH_DMA_ADDR_T_64BIT > def_bool y > depends on X86_64 || HIGHMEM64G > > So looks like the size of dma_addr_t also depends on the config. We are dependent upon dma_addr_t (for transporting the addresses to the GTT), so use it and stick a warn or build bug if it ever comes up short? -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
