On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 7:26 AM, Damien Lespiau <damien.lespiau@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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). > This comment is invalid here. It was meant for surface state in Mesa. I'll remove it. > Thanks, > > -- > Damien _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
