[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171211143845.sq3riyeffl3l5f52@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2017 15:38:45 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
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>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/8] x86/early-quirks: Extend Intel graphics stolen
memory placement to 64bit
* Matthew Auld <matthew.auld@...el.com> wrote:
> 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.
I'd suggest splitting this into two parts: the first one does the resource_size_t
extension, the second one the other change.
Thanks,
Ingo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists