1. 20 May, 2013 18 commits
  2. 17 May, 2013 5 commits
  3. 13 May, 2013 8 commits
  4. 10 May, 2013 7 commits
  5. 07 May, 2013 2 commits
    • Jani Nikula's avatar
      drm/i915: clear the stolen fb before resuming · 1ffc5289
      Jani Nikula authored
      Similar to
      commit 88afe715
      Author: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
      Date:   Sun Dec 16 12:15:41 2012 +0000
      
          drm/i915: Clear the stolen fb before enabling
      
      but on the resume path.
      
      Bugzilla: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=57191Reported-and-tested-by: default avatarNikolay Amiantov <nikoamia@gmail.com>
      Signed-off-by: default avatarJani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com>
      Reviewed-by: default avatarChris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
      Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org (3.9 only)
      Signed-off-by: default avatarDaniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
      1ffc5289
    • Ben Widawsky's avatar
      Revert "drm/i915: Calculate correct stolen size for GEN7+" · c4ae25ec
      Ben Widawsky authored
      This reverts commit 03752f5b.
      
      This revert requires a bit of explanation on how I understand things
      work. Internally the architects/designers decide how the stolen encoding
      works. We put it in a doc. BIOS writers take these docs and implement
      it. Driver writers read the doc too, and read the value left by the BIOS
      writers, and then we make magic.
      
      The failing here is that in the docs we had[1] contained two different
      definitions for this register for Gen7. (We have both a PCI register,
      and an MMIO, and each of these were different). At the time [2] of
      03752f5b, we asked the architects what the correct value should be; but
      that doesn't match the reality (BIOS) unfortunately.
      
      So on all machines I can get my hands on, this revert is the right thing
      to do. I've also worked with the product group to confirm that they
      agree this revert is what we should do. People using HW made my "people"
      who both write their own BIOS, and have access to our docs (Apple?).
      Investigations are still ongoing about whether we need to add a list
      of machines needing special handling, but this patch should be the
      right thing for pretty much everyone.
      
      [1] The docs are still wrong on this one. Now instead of two registers with
      two definitions, we have one register with BOTH definitions, progress?
      [2] The open source PRMs have the "wrong" definitions in chapter Volume
      1 part6, section 1.1.12.
      
      This digging was inspired by Paulo.
      
      Cc: Paulo Zanoni <przanoni@gmail.com>
      Signed-off-by: default avatarBen Widawsky <ben@bwidawsk.net>
      Acked-by: default avatarJesse Barnes <jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org>
      [danvet: Augment the patch saying that it's still a bit unclear
      whether there are any machines out there with "wrong" firmware and
      whether we need to add a list to handle them specially.]
      Signed-off-by: default avatarDaniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
      c4ae25ec