On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 03:24:37PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 05:08:31PM +0300, ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > We have several problems with out VGA handling: > > - We try to use the GMCH control VGA disable bit even though it may > > be locked > > - If we manage to disable VGA throuh GMCH control, we're no longer > > able to correctly disable the VGA plane > > - Taking part in the VGA arbitration is too expensive for X [1] > > I'd like to emphasize that X disables DRI if it detects 2 vga cards, > effectively breaking all machines with a discrete GPU. Even if one of > those is not being used. > > > +/* > > + * 21 devices with 8 functions per device max on the same bus. > > + * We don't need locking for these due to stop_machine(). > > + */ > > +static u16 vga_cmd[21*8]; > > +static u16 vga_ctl[21*8]; > > Should we just allocate storage for when we need it? We are now adding > several hundred bytes to our module, which is bound to cause us to use > an extra page, and they can be passed around through the stop_machine > closure rather than static. I guess we could do that. Although I do wonder a bit if we'd race with hotplug. Not sure there's a way to hotplug stuff onto the root bus... > > But anyway, it does what is says on the tin and makes my dGPU testing > box usable again, without breaking any other machine that I've tested on > so far, > Tested-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > -Chris > > -- > Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre -- Ville Syrjälä Intel OTC _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
