On Tue, May 07, 2013 at 03:08:42PM -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> On Tue, 7 May 2013 22:57:37 +0100
> Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, May 07, 2013 at 02:34:31PM -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> > > +static void valleyview_setup_pctx(struct drm_device *dev)
> > > +{
> > > + struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = dev->dev_private;
> > > + struct drm_i915_gem_object *pctx;
> > > + unsigned long pctx_paddr;
> > > + u32 pcbr;
> > > + int pctx_size = 24*1024;
> > > +
> > > + pcbr = I915_READ(VLV_PCBR);
> > > + if (pcbr) {
> > > + /* BIOS set it up already, grab the pre-alloc'd space */
> > > + int pcbr_offset;
> > > +
> > > + pcbr_offset = (pcbr & (~4095)) - dev_priv->mm.stolen_base;
> > > + pctx = i915_gem_object_create_stolen_for_preallocated(dev_priv->dev,
> > > + pcbr_offset,
> > > + pcbr_offset,
> > > + pctx_size);
> >
> > We're reserving global GTT space here for someting that just looks like
> > it requires contiguous physical memory. This may cause issues if
> > something else is already bound to that GTT range. I think we want to
> > extend the interface to not reserve GTT space if gtt_offset == -1.
>
> I should have added a comment for this too. The physical range for the
> power context must reside in stolen space. So while it needs
> contiguous physical memory, it also has a relationship to the stolen
> handling. I'd prefer to see a failure here than to try to do something
> fancy with funky GTT vs stolen setups... (Still waiting on the BIOS
> guys to promise the identity map going forward.)
Hmm, I am not understanding exactly what you need here. The register you
are reading looks to be a physical address - so why do we need to also
reserve a virtual address with the same offset? And if that is required,
shouldn't the else branch also reserve the corresponding virtual
address for its stolen allocation?
-Chris
--
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre
