On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 02:57:32PM -0300, Paulo Zanoni wrote: > I started digging this when I noticed that the BDW code was just > reserving 1mb by coincidence since it was reading reserved fields. > Then I noticed we didn't have any values set for SNB and earlier, and > that the HSW sizes were wrong. After that, I noticed that the reserved > area has a specific start, and may not exactly end where the stolen > memory ends. I also noticed the base pointer can be zero. So I decided > to just write a single patch fixing everything instead of 20 patches > that would be much harder to review. > > This patch may solve random stolen memory corruption/problems on > almost all platforms. Notice that since this is always dealing with > the top of the stolen memory, the problems are not so easy to > reproduce - especially since FBC is still disabled by default. > > One of the major differences of this patch is that we now look at both > the size and base address. By only looking at the size we were > assuming that the reserved area was always at the very top of > stolen, which is not always true. > > After we merge the patch series that allows user space to allocate > stolen memory we'll be able to write IGT tests that maybe catch the > bugs fixed by this patch. > > v2: > - s/BIOS reserved/stolen reserved/g (Chris) > - Don't DRM_ERROR if we can't do anything about it (Chris) > - Improve debug messages (Chris). > - Use the gen7 version instead of gen6 on HSW. Tom found some > documentation problems, so I think with gen7 we're on the safer > side (Tom). > > Signed-off-by: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni@xxxxxxxxx> Looks ok to me, I'd push for DRM_INFO() for the amount of memory available (since I think that is interesting as a user). Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
