[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180803094129.GB17798@arm.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2018 10:41:30 +0100
From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
To: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>
Cc: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>,
Matt Sealey <neko@...uhatsu.net>,
Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...e-electrons.com>,
libc-alpha@...rceware.org,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: framebuffer corruption due to overlapping stp instructions on
arm64
On Fri, Aug 03, 2018 at 09:16:39AM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On 3 August 2018 at 08:35, Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 2 Aug 2018, Matt Sealey wrote:
> >
> >> The easiest explanation for this would be that the memory isn?t mapped
> >> correctly. You can?t use PCIe memory spaces with anything other than
> >> Device-nGnRE or stricter mappings. That?s just differences between the
> >> AMBA and PCIe (posted/unposted) memory models.
>
> Whoa hold on there.
>
> Are you saying we cannot have PCIe BAR windows with memory semantics on ARM?
>
> Most accelerated graphics drivers rely heavily on the ability to map
> the VRAM normal-non-cacheable (ioremap_wc, basically), and treat it as
> ordinary memory.
Yeah, I'd expect framebuffers to be mapped as normal NC. That should be
fine for prefetchable BARs, no?
Will
Powered by blists - more mailing lists