The series looks ok to me, the only problem I see is that we are lacking means to thoroughly test host1x patches across all the supported Tegra chips. Could you detail what kind of testing this patch series has undergone, and which chips/boards have been tested? On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 9:53 AM, David Ung <davidu@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > ping? > > ________________________________________ > From: David Ung <davidu@xxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Thursday, March 5, 2015 5:51 PM > To: airlied@xxxxxxxx > Cc: linux-tegra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; thierry.reding@xxxxxxxxx; swarren@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Arto Merilainen; Terje Bergstrom; gnurou@xxxxxxxxx; David Ung > Subject: [PATCH V2 1/3] gpu: host1x: Reduce host1x job allocation size > > There is 2 set of num_relocs * sizeof(*) array at the end of host1x job. > Only the 1st set is really used and with job->gather_addr_phys pointing > somewhere within the 1st set of reloc physical addresses. > This patch removes the 2nd set of unused addresses. > > Signed-off-by: David Ung <davidu@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > drivers/gpu/host1x/job.c | 5 +++-- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/host1x/job.c b/drivers/gpu/host1x/job.c > index 63bd63f..9c11265 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/host1x/job.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/host1x/job.c > @@ -46,8 +46,9 @@ struct host1x_job *host1x_job_alloc(struct host1x_channel *ch, > (u64)num_unpins * sizeof(struct host1x_job_unpin_data) + > (u64)num_waitchks * sizeof(struct host1x_waitchk) + > (u64)num_cmdbufs * sizeof(struct host1x_job_gather) + > - (u64)num_unpins * sizeof(dma_addr_t) + > - (u64)num_unpins * sizeof(u32 *); > + (u64)num_relocs * sizeof(dma_addr_t) + > + (u64)num_cmdbufs * sizeof(dma_addr_t); > + > if (total > ULONG_MAX) > return NULL; > > -- > 1.8.1.5 > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tegra" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
