[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1712082352250.2301@nanos>
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2017 23:58:21 +0100 (CET)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Matthew Auld <matthew.auld@...el.com>
cc: intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org,
Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@...ux.intel.com>,
Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@...ux.intel.com>,
Chris Wilson <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk>,
Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni@...el.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/9] x86/early-quirks: Extend Intel graphics stolen memory
placement to 64bit
Matthew,
On Thu, 7 Dec 2017, Matthew Auld wrote:
Can you please add a version number to your patches? Having the same
subject line five times is just annoying.
> From: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@...ux.intel.com>
> To give upcoming SKU BIOSes more flexibility in placing the Intel
> graphics stolen memory, make all variables storing the placement or size
> compatible with full 64 bit range. Also by exporting the stolen region
> as a resource, we can then nuke the duplicated stolen discovery in i915.
>
> v2: export the stolen region as a resource
> fix u16 << 16 (Chris)
> v3: actually fix u16 << 16
And please move the version thing below the --- separator so it can be
discarded by tools. It's not part of the changelog.
> +struct resource intel_graphics_stolen_res = DEFINE_RES_MEM(0, 0);
This is updated in __init so the variable should be marked __ro_after_init.
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists