On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 05:41:44PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > 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... Within stop-machine? I surely hope not! -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
