On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 07:25:37AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 10:21:44AM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote:
I am not convinced this is the correct solution. At least the way we used this interface, it isn't meant to ever fail. I also didn't look into exactly why we depend an ENOSPC return. That sounds fragile to me, especially for a public interface.
Eh? This interface is explicitly used to check that the requested range is available. -Chris
What I mean is, the node is already initialized, and we always expect it to be available - at least with all the callers prior to the fastboot.
I didn't look very closely at how we get the fb objects from the existing stolen memory, but my drive-by review would suggest it's much better to deal with the redundancy at that level (or make this an i915 private function).
Removing the WARN is fine with me though, it's: Tested-by: Ben Widawsky ben@bwidawsk.net
My complaint was more with how we solved the problem initially, and not with this patch itself.