From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/agp/i915: trim stolen space to 32M
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2010 09:15:04 -0700
Message-ID: <20100708091504.1e7a7e86@virtuousgeek.org>
References: <20100707144000.3ce0c490@virtuousgeek.org>
	<201007081058.22193.simon.farnsworth@onelan.com>
	<20100708090144.22b5cb28@virtuousgeek.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org>
Received: from cpoproxy2-pub.bluehost.com (cpoproxy2-pub.bluehost.com
	[67.222.39.38])
	by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 0CB969EEA2
	for <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>;
	Thu,  8 Jul 2010 09:15:14 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20100708090144.22b5cb28@virtuousgeek.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/options/intel-gfx>,
	<mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/intel-gfx>
List-Post: <mailto:intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>
List-Help: <mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx>,
	<mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org
Errors-To: intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org
Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, t.artem@mailcity.com
List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org

On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 09:01:44 -0700
Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org> wrote:

> On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 10:58:21 +0100
> Simon Farnsworth <simon.farnsworth@onelan.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Wednesday 7 July 2010, Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org> wrote:
> > > Some BIOSes will claim a large chunk of stolen space.  Unless we
> > > reclaim it, our aperture for remapping buffer objects will be
> > > constrained.  So clamp the stolen space to 32M and ignore the rest.
> > > 
> > I'm not sure that this changelog fits the patch - if I'm understanding the code 
> > correctly, you're clamping to 16M, not 32M.
> > 
> > Apart from that, the code looks sensible.
> 
> Oops updated to 32M for Ironlake but didn't update the changelog or
> comments.

Oh and I see you were trying to tell me that I failed to update the
code too.  Sigh.

I'll post an updated version with the code and comments fixed.

-- 
Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center