From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Mateo Lozano, Oscar" Subject: Re: [PATCH 15/53] drm/i915/bdw: Don't write PDP in the legacy way when using LRCs Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2014 12:45:46 +0000 Message-ID: <92648605EABDA246B775AAB04C95A7A3137BEBDE@IRSMSX103.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <1402673891-14618-1-git-send-email-oscar.mateo@intel.com> <1402673891-14618-16-git-send-email-oscar.mateo@intel.com> <20140618234248.GE5716@bdvolkin-ubuntu-desktop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from mga11.intel.com (mga11.intel.com [192.55.52.93]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B29C86E393 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 2014 05:46:09 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20140618234248.GE5716@bdvolkin-ubuntu-desktop> Content-Language: en-US List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org Sender: "Intel-gfx" To: "Volkin, Bradley D" Cc: "intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org" List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- Intel Corporation (UK) Limited Registered No. 1134945 (England) Registered Office: Pipers Way, Swindon SN3 1RJ VAT No: 860 2173 47 > -----Original Message----- > From: Volkin, Bradley D > Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2014 12:43 AM > To: Mateo Lozano, Oscar > Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org > Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 15/53] drm/i915/bdw: Don't write PDP in t= he > legacy way when using LRCs > = > On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 08:37:33AM -0700, oscar.mateo@intel.com wrote: > > From: Oscar Mateo > > > > This is mostly for correctness so that we know we are running the LR > > context correctly (this is, the PDPs are contained inside the context > > object). > > > > v2: Move the check to inside the enable PPGTT function. The switch > > happens in two places: the legacy context switch (that we won't hit > > when Execlists are enabled) and the PPGTT enable, which unfortunately > > we need. This would look much nicer if the ppgtt->enable was part of > > the ring init, where it logically belongs. > > > > Signed-off-by: Oscar Mateo > > --- > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_gtt.c | 5 +++++ > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_gtt.c > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_gtt.c > > index 8b3cde7..9f0c69e 100644 > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_gtt.c > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_gtt.c > > @@ -844,6 +844,11 @@ static int gen8_ppgtt_enable(struct > i915_hw_ppgtt *ppgtt) > > if (USES_FULL_PPGTT(dev)) > > continue; > > > > + /* In the case of Execlists, we don't want to write the PDPs > > + * in the legacy way (they live inside the context now) */ > > + if (intel_enable_execlists(dev)) > > + return 0; > = > Along the lines of one of Daniel's comments about the module parameter, I > think we could use some clarity on when to use intel_enable_execlists() vs > lrc_enabled vs i915.enable_execlists. Yep. I=B4ll look at this in v4. It=B4s probably better doing the early sani= tize as Daniel suggested and then just use i915.enable_execlists everywhere. -- Oscar