On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 07:25:37AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 10:21:44AM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote: > > I am not convinced this is the correct solution. At least the way we > > used this interface, it isn't meant to ever fail. I also didn't look > > into exactly why we depend an ENOSPC return. That sounds fragile to me, > > especially for a public interface. > > Eh? This interface is explicitly used to check that the requested range > is available. > -Chris > What I mean is, the node is already initialized, and we always expect it to be available - at least with all the callers prior to the fastboot. I didn't look very closely at how we get the fb objects from the existing stolen memory, but my drive-by review would suggest it's much better to deal with the redundancy at that level (or make this an i915 private function). Removing the WARN is fine with me though, it's: Tested-by: Ben Widawsky <ben@xxxxxxxxxxxx> My complaint was more with how we solved the problem initially, and not with this patch itself. -- Ben Widawsky, Intel Open Source Technology Center _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
