Quoting Paulo Zanoni (2017-11-14 20:29:49) > Em Ter, 2017-11-14 às 20:19 +0000, Chris Wilson escreveu: > > Only fbc actually depends on stolen allocation to > > function, and no one complains if fbc is disabled. (There's a sketch > > out > > there that we could use a contiguous allocation for fbc if we run out > > of > > stolen.) > > ILK_DPFC_CB_BASE (aka FBC_CFB_BASE these days) needs to be programmed > as an offset of the base of stolen memory, so you'll need to allocate > this memory in the region that comes right after stolen, or you'll run > out of bits to write to the register. > > Also, things such as the "last 8mb bug" of BDW/SKL suggest that maybe > this wouldn't work. > > Unless, of course, you have some plan to work around this. Nah, just the stuff I was last looking at (powerctx) were physical. Being able to disable stolen and recover the memory is still on the wishlist. -Chris _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
