Hi Vinay,
> > > This bit does not cause an explicit L3 flush. We already use
> > At all? Or only on newer hardware? And as a genuine spec change or as a
> > bug / workaround?
> >
> > If the hardware has re-purposed the bit then it is probably worth at
> > least adding a comment to the bit definition to say that it is only
> > valid up to IP version 12.70.
> At this point, this is a bug on MTL since this bit is not related to L3
> flushes as per spec. Regarding older platforms, still checking the reason
> why this was added (i.e if it fixed something and will regress if removed).
> If not, we can extend the change for others as well in a separate patch. On
> older platforms, this bit seems to cause an implicit flush at best.
> >
> > > PIPE_CONTROL_DC_FLUSH_ENABLE for that purpose.
> > >
> > > Cc: Nirmoy Das <nirmoy.das@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: Mikka Kuoppala <mika.kuoppala@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: Vinay Belgaumkar <vinay.belgaumkar@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/gen8_engine_cs.c | 8 ++++++--
> > > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/gen8_engine_cs.c
> > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/gen8_engine_cs.c
> > > index ba4c2422b340..abbc02f3e66e 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/gen8_engine_cs.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/gen8_engine_cs.c
> > > @@ -247,6 +247,7 @@ static int mtl_dummy_pipe_control(struct
> > > i915_request *rq)
> > > int gen12_emit_flush_rcs(struct i915_request *rq, u32 mode)
> > > {
> > > struct intel_engine_cs *engine = rq->engine;
> > > + struct intel_gt *gt = rq->engine->gt;
> > > /*
> > > * On Aux CCS platforms the invalidation of the Aux
> > > @@ -278,7 +279,8 @@ int gen12_emit_flush_rcs(struct i915_request
> > > *rq, u32 mode)
> > > * deals with Protected Memory which is not needed for
> > > * AUX CCS invalidation and lead to unwanted side effects.
> > > */
> > > - if (mode & EMIT_FLUSH)
> > > + if ((mode & EMIT_FLUSH) &&
> > > + !(IS_GFX_GT_IP_RANGE(gt, IP_VER(12, 70), IP_VER(12, 71))))
> > Why stop at 12.71? Is the meaning only changed for 12.70 and the
> > old/correct version will be restored in later hardware?
>
> Was trying to keep this limited to MTL for now until the above statements
> are verified.
I'm not fully conviced here... this is not what the hardware spec
says. Am I reading the specs wrong?
Is there any ongoing discussion with the hardware developers?
Andi
