[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130311225048.GA3872@bremse>
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 23:50:48 +0100
From: Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Renninger <trenn@...e.de>,
Tang Chen <tangchen@...fujitsu.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>,
David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
Jacob Shin <jacob.shin@....com>, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/14] x86, ACPI, mm: Kill max_low_pfn_mapped
On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 10:09:26PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 03/07/2013 09:28 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 9:27 PM, Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org> wrote:
> >> They are not using memblock_find_in_range(), so 1ULL<< will not help.
> >>
> >> Really hope i915 drm guys could clean that hacks.
> >
> > The code isn't being used. Just leave it alone. Maybe add a comment.
> > The change is just making things more confusing.
> >
>
> Indeed, but...
>
> Daniel: can you guys clean this up or can we just remove the #if 0 clause?
I guess we could just put this into a comment explaining where stolen
memory for the gfx devices is at on gen2. But tbh I don't mind if we just
keep the #if 0 code around. For all newer platforms we can get at that
offset through mch bar registers, so I don't really care.
-Daniel
--
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
+41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists