On 30/10/17 13:58, Chris Wilson wrote:
Quoting Michel Thierry (2017-10-30 18:56:15)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c
index af745749509c..02fb35744f66 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c
@@ -1984,10 +1984,15 @@ int i915_reset_engine(struct intel_engine_cs *engine, unsigned int flags)
goto out;
}
- ret = intel_gpu_reset(engine->i915, intel_engine_flag(engine));
+ if (!engine->i915->guc.execbuf_client)
+ ret = intel_gpu_reset(engine->i915, intel_engine_flag(engine));
+ else
+ ret = intel_guc_reset_engine(engine);
While redundant, the interface cries out for
intel_guc_reset_engine(guc, engine);
even though, in this case we would be using
intel_guc_reset_engine(&engine->i915->guc, engine);
I'll change the name and pass the guc as parameter.
I would also be tempted to change intel_gpu_reset to
intel_gpu_reset_engine(engine->i915, engine);
intel_gt_reset_engine?
And then it becomes a wrapper of intel_gpu_reset? (intel_gpu_reset is
used for full reset path and in older platforms too).
Just trying to make our language consistent along each path.
It's true that it would look better as you suggest:
if (!guc_client)
intel_gt_reset_engine(i915, engine);
else
intel_guc_reset_engine(guc, engine);
Thanks,
-Michel
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
