On 7 November 2016 at 09:14, Michel Dänzer <michel at daenzer.net> wrote: > On 05/11/16 03:14 AM, Emil Velikov wrote: >> On 2 November 2016 at 03:07, Michel Dänzer <michel at daenzer.net> wrote: >>> >>> The first attached patch will result in drmParsePciDeviceInfo always >>> reporting revision 0 on kernels without the second attached patch. Will >>> that be an issue for the amdgpu-pro stack? >>> >>> Please follow up directly to the patch e-mails with any comments on the >>> patches. >>> >> Fleshing out the question from the actual patches: >> >> Do the AMDGPU-PRO or the AMD stack [as a whole] depend on the revision >> field as returned by the drmDevice API ? > > One answer is that https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/120132/ uses Nice, I really like this ! Wonder if others will do the same, rather than duplicating it throughout ddx/mesa/other drivers. That aside, > the revision ID. In this case a wrong revision ID would only cause a > cosmetic issue, but I can imagine that other code in the amdgpu-pro > stack really needs the correct revision ID to accurately identify the GPU. > Don't mean to sound rude, but I was hoping for a definite answer. Regardless, do you/fellow AMD devs, any preference on how to go with this bug [1] ? Add an override to force use of the revision file - be that envvar, new API {drmDeviceUseRevisionFile, drmDevice...v2}, or revert the 12 + commits (pulling only the offending one won't cut it). Obviously I'm not a huge fan of the last one :-\ [1] https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=98502 > >> Since we have a lovely bug in libdrm and might roll out a release >> soonish it'll be great to have this squashed/merged as well. > > I hope the release can wait for the patch above to land as well. > Atm, we crash for anyone using !pci devices, so I'd like to spare that. So it'll be great if this lands in the next days/week. Thanks Emil
