[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e13accfc-cde8-754c-1730-0f2db4e2dd2e@shipmail.org>
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2019 15:05:53 +0200
From: Thomas Hellström (VMware)
<thomas_os@...pmail.org>
To: "Koenig, Christian" <Christian.Koenig@....com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>
Cc: dri-devel <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
"pv-drivers@...are.com" <pv-drivers@...are.com>,
VMware Graphics <linux-graphics-maintainer@...are.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Lendacky, Thomas" <Thomas.Lendacky@....com>,
Thomas Hellstrom <thellstrom@...are.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] drm/ttm, drm/vmwgfx: Correctly support support AMD
memory encryption
On 9/4/19 2:35 PM, Thomas Hellström (VMware) wrote:
>
>>
>> I've already talked with Christoph that we probably want to switch TTM
>> over to using that instead to also get rid of the ttm_io_prot() hack.
>
> OK, would that mean us ditching other memory modes completely? And
> on-the-fly caching transitions? or is it just for the special case of
> cached coherent memory? Do we need to cache the coherent kernel
> mappings in TTM as well, for ttm_bo_kmap()?
Reading this again, I wanted to point out that I'm not against this.
Just curious.
/Thomas
Powered by blists - more mailing lists