Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 18:27:53 +0200 From: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> To: Tijl Coosemans <tijl@FreeBSD.org> Cc: x11@FreeBSD.org, dumbbell@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: [rfc] Radeon AGP support patches Message-ID: <20141027162753.GB1877@kib.kiev.ua> In-Reply-To: <20141027170055.10af15e6@kalimero.tijl.coosemans.org> References: <20141026162442.1330d4c3@kalimero.tijl.coosemans.org> <20141027141631.GX1877@kib.kiev.ua> <20141027170055.10af15e6@kalimero.tijl.coosemans.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 05:00:55PM +0100, Tijl Coosemans wrote: > In ttm_agp_bind the ttm->pages array is already populated. These are > the pages that need to be put into the GTT. The patch modifies struct > agp_memory in sys/dev/agp such that ttm->pages can be passed via > agp_bind_memory. Maybe it would be better to add two new functions to > sys/dev/agp/agp.c: agp_bind_pages and agp_unbind_pages. These would > take a vm_page_t array as argument and bind/unbind the pages directly > in the GTT. There's no need for ttm_agp_bind to call agp_alloc_memory > then and struct agp_memory would not be involved at all. Does that > sound better? Yes, this approach is much better IMO. Having discriminated storage for the bound pages is too ugly; was the whole code audited for correctness after the change ?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20141027162753.GB1877>