On to, 2017-06-01 at 12:03 +0200, Michal Wajdeczko wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 10:04:46AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> >
> > void i915_ggtt_disable_guc(struct drm_i915_private *i915)
> > {
> > - if (i915->ggtt.invalidate == guc_ggtt_invalidate)
> > - i915->ggtt.invalidate = gen6_ggtt_invalidate;
> > + /* We should only be called after i915_ggtt_enable_guc() */
> > + GEM_BUG_ON(i915->ggtt.invalidate != guc_ggtt_invalidate);
> > +
> > + i915->ggtt.invalidate = gen6_ggtt_invalidate;
> > }
>
> While this looks correct today, it may not work in the future if we
> will need somethig other than gen6_ggtt_invalidate() as base invalidate
> function or guc_gtt_invalidate() as the one for the guc. Just a head up.
Currently the assignment is directly to gen6_ggtt_invalidate, no
questions asked. So I don't think the assert could be much more :)
Maybe GuC code should backup the invalidate function before overriding.
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
