On 16/02/2017 13:28, Chris Wilson wrote:
On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 01:23:51PM +0000, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 16/02/2017 13:20, Chris Wilson wrote:
On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 12:23:24PM +0000, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
+ /*
+ * Emit the two workaround batch buffers, recording the offset from the
+ * start of the workaround batch buffer object for each and their
+ * respective sizes.
+ */
+ for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(wa_bb_fn); i++) {
+ wa_bb[i]->offset = ALIGN(batch_ptr - batch, CACHELINE_BYTES);
+ batch_ptr = wa_bb_fn[i](engine, batch_ptr);
+ wa_bb[i]->size = batch_ptr - batch + wa_bb[i]->offset;
wa_bb[i]->size = batch_ptr - (batch + wa_bb[i]->offset);
?
Also should it be
batch_ptr = wa_bb_fn[i](engine, batch + wa_bb[i]->offset);
No but you made me realize it should already be aligned by contract
expected from the vfunc which emits the indirect bb. I'll add a WARN and
abort if it is not.
Regards,
Tvrtko
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
