Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2017-06-23 12:58:19) > > On 21/06/2017 10:45, Chris Wilson wrote: > > Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2017-06-21 10:13:57) > >> From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx> > >> > >> This is a lighter-weight alternative to the previously posted > >> RFC titled "drm/i915: Engine discovery uAPI" which still allows > >> some engine configuration probing without depending on PCI ids. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx> > >> Cc: Ben Widawsky <ben@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxxx> > >> Cc: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> Cc: Jon Bloomfield <jon.bloomfield@xxxxxxxxx> > >> Cc: "Rogozhkin, Dmitry V" <dmitry.v.rogozhkin@xxxxxxxxx> > >> Cc: Oscar Mateo <oscar.mateo@xxxxxxxxx> > >> Cc: "Gong, Zhipeng" <zhipeng.gong@xxxxxxxxx> > >> Cc: intel-vaapi-media@xxxxxxxxxxxx > >> -- > >> Floating as an alternative to the heavier engine discovery API > >> sent previously which did not manage to gain much interest from > >> userspace clients. > >> > >> With this one enumeration and feature discovery would be done by > >> sending null batches to all engine instances. Downside is less > >> extensibility if we are using a fixed and smaller number of eb > >> flags. > > > > But we lose out on features? Just after you convinced me that features > > was what we wanted! :-p > > We lose the features but get the capabilities :), if that was the joke! > > Or a concern that we might really want more data about stuff when > probing? We could still add that later if we wanted since it is really a > different thing altogether. > > This caps thing is actually 2nd part from another experiment I had, > where the first part allowed userspace to tell us they do not care about > the state, so we would be able to pick a VCS engine per-batch buffer, > and not only statically per context. > > Maybe I add that one to this series as well and then it all becomes even > more useful? My minimum requirement for testing execbuf is to be able to explicitly select an engine. So long as you do not exclude that possibility, I don't mind. I was also happy if that requires us to query the set of engines to figure out the mapping for the new interface. -Chris _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
