On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 09:53:37PM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote: > On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 07:07:38PM +0100, Michal Wajdeczko wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 04:52:34PM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 04:43:02PM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote: > > > > On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 02:12:09PM +0000, Michal Wajdeczko wrote: > > > > > +/* Hardware Engine ID definitions */ > > > > > +#define RCS_HW 0 > > > > > +#define VCS_HW 1 > > > > > +#define BCS_HW 2 > > > > > +#define VECS_HW 3 > > > > > +#define VCS2_HW 4 > > > > > > > > So don't put them in the header if they may have inconsistent meanings. > > > > > > Or if you do want to keep them in a header, either i915_reg.h or > > > intel_engine_reg.h as somewhere out of the way, and clear that they are > > > not meant for the rest of the bookkeeping in intel_ringbuffer.h. > > > > I can't find nice spot for these engine IDs in the i915_reg.h > > > > Can I just move these definitions to the top of this header? > > I would rather we spend a little effort on splitting our driver API from > hw innards. Sounds reasonable. As it looks that engine->hw_id is mostly used in code related to semaphores, I'll move these engine definitions to i915_reg.h near MI_SEMAPHORE_SIGNAL instruction. In case of guc_id, it looks that these engine ids are already defined in intel_guc_fwif.h (see GUC_RENDER_ENGINE..GUC_VIDEO_ENGINE2) For now they are the same, but who knows what the future brings ;) -Michal _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
