On ma, 2016-08-22 at 09:03 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> With full-ppgtt, we want the user to have full control over their memory
> layout, with a separate instance per context. Forcing them to use a
> shared memory layout for !RCS not only duplicates the amount of work we
> have to do, but also defeats the memory segregation on offer.
>
> Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_execbuffer.c | 5 +----
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_execbuffer.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_execbuffer.c
> index 8f9d5ad0cfd8..fb1a64738fb8 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_execbuffer.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_execbuffer.c
> @@ -1250,12 +1250,9 @@ static struct i915_gem_context *
> i915_gem_validate_context(struct drm_device *dev, struct drm_file *file,
> struct intel_engine_cs *engine, const u32 ctx_id)
> {
> - struct i915_gem_context *ctx = NULL;
> + struct i915_gem_context *ctx;
> struct i915_ctx_hang_stats *hs;
>
> - if (engine->id != RCS && ctx_id != DEFAULT_CONTEXT_HANDLE)
> - return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
> -
One would think this existed due to lack of testing or bugs in early
hardware. Do we need to use IS_GEN or some other means of validation?
Regards, Joonas
--
Joonas Lahtinen
Open Source Technology Center
Intel Corporation
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
