On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 11:11 PM, Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 06:57:07PM +0100, Damien Lespiau wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 10:49:22AM -0700, Anuj Phogat wrote: >> > 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. >> >> Don't you have the exact same problem? how does the kernel know about >> this alignment constraint when resolving the relocation? > > struct drm_i915_gem_exec_object2.alignment goes back to some gen2/3 design > ideas that (afaik at least) have never been used really but survived until > now. Fancy how we can reuse that 7 generations later ;-) > > And at least on a quick readthrough the code is all still functional too. Yes, I'm planning to make use of it and pass alignment value for Yf/Ys from Mesa. Thanks. > -Daniel > -- > Daniel Vetter > Software Engineer, Intel Corporation > http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
