On Wed, 2017-09-27 at 17:44 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> In the next few patches, we wish to enable different features for the
> scheduler, some which may subtlety change ABI (e.g. allow requests to be
> reordered under different circumstances). So we need to make sure
> userspace is cognizant of the changes (if they care), by which we employ
> the usual method of a GETPARAM. We already have an
> I915_PARAM_HAS_SCHEDULER (which notes the existing ability to reorder
> requests to avoid bubbles), and now we wish to extend that to be a
> bitmask to describe the different capabilities implemented.
Please link the last Mesa series here, as this is the patch bringing in
the ABI.
> Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<SNIP>
> +++ b/include/uapi/drm/i915_drm.h
> @@ -397,10 +397,17 @@ typedef struct drm_i915_irq_wait {
> #define I915_PARAM_MIN_EU_IN_POOL 39
> #define I915_PARAM_MMAP_GTT_VERSION 40
>
> -/* Query whether DRM_I915_GEM_EXECBUFFER2 supports user defined execution
> +/*
> + * Query whether DRM_I915_GEM_EXECBUFFER2 supports user defined execution
> * priorities and the driver will attempt to execute batches in priority order.
> + * The param returns a capability bitmask, nonzero implies that the scheduler
> + * is enabled, with different features present according to the mask.
> */
> #define I915_PARAM_HAS_SCHEDULER 41
> +#define I915_SCHEDULER_CAP_ENABLED (1ul << 0)
> +#define I915_SCHEDULER_CAP_PRIORITY (1ul << 1)
> +#define I915_SCHEDULER_CAP_PREEMPTION (1ul << 2)
There seems to be the occasional BIT() hanging under uapi (I seem to
have added the first for i915.h). So maybe we need to revert that or
convert these.
Either way;
Reviewed-by: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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
