On Mon, 28 Aug 2017, Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 02:35:54PM +0100, Daniel Stone wrote: >> Hi Daniel, >> >> On 25 August 2017 at 18:17, Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > Which of these do we need to cherry-pick over to -next-fixes? There's no >> > annotations about that. If the answer is "most" I'm leaning towards >> > disabling CCS for 4.14, minimal set would be ideal (and first in the patch >> > series). >> >> My opinion below; tl;dr is that I don't think most of them are >> super-critical. Ville obviously has a far stronger opinion than me on >> the shape of the code, so I'm fine with this series, which seems to >> mostly be a merge back of the delta between whatever Ville's latest >> branch was, and whatever the last patchset Ben sent out was. >> >> >> Ville Syrjälä (12): >> >> drm/i915: Treat fb->offsets[] as a raw byte offset instead of a linear >> >> offset >> >> This should land into -fixes. I trust Ville that it has no UABI >> impact, but seems like something to be very consistent on. > > It does change the uabi. That's the whole point. What was merged doesn't > agree with what userspace wants. So this we want in definitely so that > we don't end up exposing the wrong uabi in any released kernel. > >> >> >> drm/i915: Skip fence alignemnt check for the CCS plane >> >> Not sure if this is -fixes material really, just a cleanup? > > It makes the kernel less likely to reject the fb entirely. So > without this userspace has to be rather careful where it places > the aux surface. I would include this as well. > >> >> >> drm/i915: Switch over to the LLC/eLLC hotspot avoidance hash mode for >> >> CCS >> >> Not -fixes, performance optimisation. > > We hope. It does change the layout of the compressed data though so if > our testcases try to generate compressed data with the CPU it'll not go > well if the test assumes the wrong hash mode. I would include this as > well so that we don't end up in any kind of a mess later when we try to > change it. > > So the patches were more or less sorted in priority order, and we want > at least 01,02 and maybe 03. When you decide what to apply, please *please* add the appropriate Fixes: tags for the ones you want to show up in v4.14. BR, Jani. > >> >> >> drm/i915: Add a comment exlaining CCS hsub/vsub >> >> Seems harmless to land to -fixes. >> >> >> drm/i915: Nuke a pointless unreachable() >> >> Ditto. >> >> >> drm/i915: Add the missing Y/Yf modifiers for SKL+ sprites >> >> Per my previous reply, NAK to landing at all, since DDB/WM allocation >> seems too broken for it to work. >> >> >> drm/i915: Clean up the sprite modifier checks >> >> Fine with this, but doesn't seem like -fixes material. >> >> >> drm/i915: Add CCS capability for sprites >> >> NAK, same reason as Y/Yf. >> >> >> drm/i915: Allow up to 32KB stride on SKL+ "sprites" >> >> Again doesn't seem like -fixes necessarily? >> >> >> drm: Fix modifiers_property kernel doc >> >> Good for -fixes. >> >> >> drm: Check that the plane supports the request format+modifier combo >> >> Good for core (not Intel) -fixes. >> >> >> drm/i915: Remove the pipe/plane ID checks from >> >> skl_check_ccs_aux_surface() >> >> Seems fine but probably not -fixes material; land in Intel after a merge? >> >> Cheers, >> Daniel -- Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
