On 08/02/2017 14:44, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 08/02/2017 13:20, Chris Wilson wrote:
On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 01:13:48PM +0000, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx>
-static int gen9_init_perctx_bb(struct intel_engine_cs *engine,
- struct i915_wa_ctx_bb *wa_ctx,
- uint32_t *batch,
- uint32_t *offset)
+static u32 *gen9_init_perctx_bb(struct intel_engine_cs *engine, u32
*batch)
{
- uint32_t index = wa_ctx_start(wa_ctx, *offset, CACHELINE_DWORDS);
-
- wa_ctx_emit(batch, index, MI_BATCH_BUFFER_END);
+ *batch++ = MI_BATCH_BUFFER_END;
- return wa_ctx_end(wa_ctx, *offset = index, 1);
+ return batch;
}
Transformation looks reasonable, but I'd like to omit this per-ctx bb
when empty.
Don't know if that is possible. It is always programming the offset at
the moment so documentation digging is required.
It is not clear to me from the spec if that would be OK. Looks like we
have to have a MI_BB_END at the end of the perctx_bb so perhaps the hw
executes sometimes the full batch (form indirect bb), and sometimes only
the second part? So if we would omit the second one, we would need to
put a BB_END on the first one (this would only apply in the gen9 case,
gen8 already has an non-empty 2nd batch). Not sure that complication
would be worth it.
Regards,
Tvrtko
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
