| Message ID | 20171207210259.25986-1-chris@chris-wilson.co.uk (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Thu, 07 Dec 2017 22:02:59 +0100, Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> wrote: > Recently the kernel has switched to using a combined i915.enable_guc > rather than multiple i915.enable_guc_submission parameters. > > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> > Cc: Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdeczko@intel.com> > --- > lib/i915/gem_submission.c | 5 +++++ > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/lib/i915/gem_submission.c b/lib/i915/gem_submission.c > index 8bff4844f..1414c7138 100644 > --- a/lib/i915/gem_submission.c > +++ b/lib/i915/gem_submission.c > @@ -75,6 +75,11 @@ unsigned gem_submission_method(int fd) > if (dir < 0) > return 0; > + if (igt_sysfs_get_u32(dir, "enable_guc") & 1) { > + flags |= GEM_SUBMISSION_GUC | GEM_SUBMISSION_EXECLISTS; Hmm, maybe I'm missing something, but as modparam represents actual driver mode of operation where value '1' represents GuC submission mode and as we no longer support fallback to execlist mode, I'm not sure that we should turn on the second GEM_SUBMISSION_EXECLISTS bit here. But since old modparam was interpreted in the similar way, Reviewed-by: Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdeczko@intel.com> > + goto out; > + } > + > if (igt_sysfs_get_boolean(dir, "enable_guc_submission")) { > flags |= GEM_SUBMISSION_GUC | GEM_SUBMISSION_EXECLISTS; > goto out;
Quoting Michal Wajdeczko (2017-12-07 23:30:54) > On Thu, 07 Dec 2017 22:02:59 +0100, Chris Wilson > <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> wrote: > > > Recently the kernel has switched to using a combined i915.enable_guc > > rather than multiple i915.enable_guc_submission parameters. > > > > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> > > Cc: Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdeczko@intel.com> > > --- > > lib/i915/gem_submission.c | 5 +++++ > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/lib/i915/gem_submission.c b/lib/i915/gem_submission.c > > index 8bff4844f..1414c7138 100644 > > --- a/lib/i915/gem_submission.c > > +++ b/lib/i915/gem_submission.c > > @@ -75,6 +75,11 @@ unsigned gem_submission_method(int fd) > > if (dir < 0) > > return 0; > > + if (igt_sysfs_get_u32(dir, "enable_guc") & 1) { > > + flags |= GEM_SUBMISSION_GUC | GEM_SUBMISSION_EXECLISTS; > > Hmm, maybe I'm missing something, but as modparam represents actual driver > mode of operation where value '1' represents GuC submission mode and as we > no longer support fallback to execlist mode, I'm not sure that we should > turn on the second GEM_SUBMISSION_EXECLISTS bit here. Execlists really means ring-per-context / lrc, as opposed to that we are directly programming ELSP. If you feel creative, GEM_foo_LRC. (In tests where is matters, it is used to determine if we can rely on having independent rings between contexts.) > But since old modparam was interpreted in the similar way, But you were meant to say "time for a GETPARAM!" Which will be a sad day as it means that GuC represents an ABI break... :-p -Chris
diff --git a/lib/i915/gem_submission.c b/lib/i915/gem_submission.c index 8bff4844f..1414c7138 100644 --- a/lib/i915/gem_submission.c +++ b/lib/i915/gem_submission.c @@ -75,6 +75,11 @@ unsigned gem_submission_method(int fd) if (dir < 0) return 0; + if (igt_sysfs_get_u32(dir, "enable_guc") & 1) { + flags |= GEM_SUBMISSION_GUC | GEM_SUBMISSION_EXECLISTS; + goto out; + } + if (igt_sysfs_get_boolean(dir, "enable_guc_submission")) { flags |= GEM_SUBMISSION_GUC | GEM_SUBMISSION_EXECLISTS; goto out;
Recently the kernel has switched to using a combined i915.enable_guc rather than multiple i915.enable_guc_submission parameters. Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> Cc: Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdeczko@intel.com> --- lib/i915/gem_submission.c | 5 +++++ 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)