From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ben Widawsky <ben@bwidawsk.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: swizzling support for snb/ivb
Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2012 19:13:41 -0800
Message-ID: <4F2DF3E5.80309@bwidawsk.net>
References: <f80fcd$3bopbq@fmsmga001.fm.intel.com>
	<1328138138-6143-1-git-send-email-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
	<20120202053057.GA13722@seagal.kumite>
	<20120202084001.GA4107@phenom.ffwll.local>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org>
Received: from cloud01.chad-versace.us (184-106-247-128.static.cloud-ips.com
	[184.106.247.128])
	by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BB3D9E77F
	for <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>;
	Sat,  4 Feb 2012 19:13:45 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20120202084001.GA4107@phenom.ffwll.local>
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
To: Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>, Intel Graphics Development <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>
List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org

On 02/02/12 00:40, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 09:30:57PM -0800, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> [...]
>> I'd also say it's not a bad idea to elaborate the assumption that we
>> never have less than 256MB of memory WARN_ON(dimm_c0 + dimm_c1 == 0).
>
> I'm pretty sure that we can't boot with 0mb of ram ;-) The other thing is
> that swizzling is a pure preformance optimization - if we enable it on
> setup where it's not required we'll only annoy the memory controller with
> less efficient access patterns.

What I meant was, this value is still 0 in say, a system with 2
128MB DIMMs.

 > [...]