On Thu, Jul 04, 2013 at 10:54:58AM +0300, Ville Syrj?l? wrote: > On Wed, Jul 03, 2013 at 03:00:39PM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 03, 2013 at 11:58:31PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 11:44 PM, Ben Widawsky <ben at bwidawsk.net> wrote: > > > > Yes. It won't be a requirement for mesa to know, but since I want to > > > > kill aliasing ppgtt as much as possible, I intend to update getparam to > > > > both set 0 to aliasing, and a new one for ppgtt. > > > > > > We use that one essentially to decide whether the hw uses ppgtt or > > > not, aliasing kinda doesn't matter. So to keep api I guess we need to > > > keep that one enabled. Although only i-g-t really cares I think, but > > > keeping it working would still be nice. Maybe just add a comment to > > > the #define explaining what's going on? > > > -Daniel > > > > It's a bit off topic for this series, but I don't see any reason to keep > > it working. If it doesn't end up being too much trouble, I can - but in > > actuality on the kernel would be able to use it. Exposing the param as > > true to user space would be a lie. > > But won't old Mesa refuse to work if you tell it aliasing ppgtt is not > enabled? AFAIK, mesa doesn't check... I can update mesa too if so. > > -- > Ville Syrj?l? > Intel OTC -- Ben Widawsky, Intel Open Source Technology Center
