From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Keith Packard <keithp@keithp.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] drm/i915: Initialise g4x watermarks for
	disabled pipes
Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2011 18:02:51 -0700
Message-ID: <yunipusmbt0.fsf@aiko.keithp.com>
References: <1301995458-2699-1-git-send-email-chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
	<1301995458-2699-2-git-send-email-chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
	<yunmxk4fmd6.fsf@aiko.keithp.com>
	<b7da2f$r004or@fmsmga001.fm.intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============2073654705=="
Return-path: <intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org>
Received: from keithp.com (home.keithp.com [63.227.221.253])
	by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C45109E9B8
	for <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>;
	Tue,  5 Apr 2011 18:03:05 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <b7da2f$r004or@fmsmga001.fm.intel.com>
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: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>, intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org

--===============2073654705==
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-=";
	micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"

--=-=-=
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, 05 Apr 2011 22:12:19 +0100, Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>=
 wrote:

> Indeed, I started by setting them to zero in the caller. Decided that
> there was some precedent to use the guard_size as the minimum value for
> unused planes (and so perhaps the unused planes on the unused pipes) and
> so it was then natural to do it inside g4x_compute_wm. I guess it all
> depends on how many FIFOs are split between the pipes. Using guard_size,
> I believe, should be safest.

guard_size is probably better than random stack stuff. Any opinion on
whether this should be done in g4x_update_wm instead of g4x_compute_wm0?

=2D-=20
keith.packard@intel.com

--=-=-=
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFNm7u7Qp8BWwlsTdMRAte5AKDqUZJB4qC8ohJgqkmiNaF+LxLiYQCfbvhl
Db/ydkp57bUzvwMUAmt3ftg=
=51tg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--=-=-=--

--===============2073654705==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

--===============2073654705==--