Re: [PATCH 1/2] drm/i915/gen9: Clean up MOCS table definitions

From: Imre Deak <imre.deak@intel.com>
To: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] drm/i915/gen9: Clean up MOCS table definitions
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 20:26:58 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1461605218.12976.4.camel@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160425123046.GB4033@nuc-i3427.alporthouse.com>

On ma, 2016-04-25 at 13:30 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 03:23:20PM +0300, Imre Deak wrote:
> > Use named struct initializers for clarity. Also fix the target cache
> > definition to reflect its role in GEN9 onwards. On GEN8 a TC value of 0
> > meant ELLC but on GEN9+ it means the TC and LRU controls are taken from
> > the PTE.
> > 
> > No functional change.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Imre Deak <imre.deak@intel.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_mocs.c | 79 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
> >  1 file changed, 52 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_mocs.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_mocs.c
> > index 23b8545..5006a92 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_mocs.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_mocs.c
> > @@ -66,9 +66,10 @@ struct drm_i915_mocs_table {
> >  #define L3_WB			3
> >  
> >  /* Target cache */
> > -#define ELLC			0
> > -#define LLC			1
> > -#define LLC_ELLC		2
> > +#define LE_TC_PAGETABLE		0
> > +#define LE_TC_LLC		1
> > +#define LE_TC_LLC_ELLC		2
> > +#define LE_TC_LLC_ELLC_ALT	3
> >  
> >  /*
> >   * MOCS tables
> > @@ -96,34 +97,58 @@ struct drm_i915_mocs_table {
> >   *       end.
> >   */
> >  static const struct drm_i915_mocs_entry skylake_mocs_table[] = {
> > -	/* { 0x00000009, 0x0010 } */
> 
> Hmm, we lose this convenience. Since we have the same table in userspace
> to check the ABI is maintained, it would be nice to keep around.

Ok, I can add them back.

> Also mention that you ran igt/gem_mocs_settings to confirm no changes.

Ok, didn't know about this patch. After patch 2/2 there is a change in
the 3rd entry but that's expected based on the explanation of the
commit message there. So I can fix the test case accordingly.

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