On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 9:25 PM, Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 9:22 PM, Yinghai Lu <yinghai@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 9:10 PM, Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 08:58:27PM -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_stolen.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_stolen.c
>>>> index 69d97cb..7f9380b 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_stolen.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_stolen.c
>>>> @@ -81,7 +81,7 @@ static unsigned long i915_stolen_to_physical(struct drm_device *dev)
>>>> base -= dev_priv->mm.gtt->stolen_size;
>>>> } else {
>>>> /* Stolen is immediately above Top of Memory */
>>>> - base = max_low_pfn_mapped << PAGE_SHIFT;
>>>> + base = __REMOVED_CRAZY__ << PAGE_SHIFT;
>>>
>>> Huh?
>>
>> Whole function:
>
> Yeah, but can't we still just do 1LLU << 32 like other places? Or at
> least explain what was there before? It's gonna confuse the hell out
> of future readers of the code.
They are not using memblock_find_in_range(), so 1ULL<< will not help.
Really hope i915 drm guys could clean that hacks.
Thanks
Yinghai
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
