On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 02:00:07PM -0700, Anuj Phogat wrote: > Signed-off-by: Anuj Phogat <anuj.phogat@xxxxxxxxx> > --- > intel/intel_bufmgr_gem.c | 7 ++++++- > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/intel/intel_bufmgr_gem.c b/intel/intel_bufmgr_gem.c > index 7c50e26..775a9f9 100644 > --- a/intel/intel_bufmgr_gem.c > +++ b/intel/intel_bufmgr_gem.c > @@ -289,8 +289,13 @@ drm_intel_gem_bo_tile_size(drm_intel_bufmgr_gem *bufmgr_gem, unsigned long size, > if (*tiling_mode == I915_TILING_NONE) > return size; > > + /* Tiled surface base addresses must be tile aligned (64KB aligned > + * for TileYS, 4KB aligned for all other tile modes). > + */ > + if (*tiling_mode == I915_TILING_YS) > + return ROUND_UP_TO(size, 64 * 1024); > /* 965+ just need multiples of page size for tiling */ > - if (bufmgr_gem->gen >= 4) > + else if (bufmgr_gem->gen >= 4) > return ROUND_UP_TO(size, 4096); I'm confused. You're saying you want to align the address of those buffers to 64k, but here we're talking about the object size. At the moment, the kernel places buffers in the address space and it was chosen that the kernel didn't need to know about those tiling formats. So we need something else if that constraint is indeed true (could you tell us the source for this assertion? privately if needed). Thanks, -- Damien _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
