On 13/11/17 09:14, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 10/11/2017 18:29, Lionel Landwerlin wrote:
On 10/11/17 16:47, Chris Wilson wrote:
Quoting Lionel Landwerlin (2017-11-10 16:37:33)
On 09/11/17 17:34, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 08/11/2017 16:22, Lionel Landwerlin wrote:
But in general would it be feasible to define and name the returned
data more precisely? Like:
struct drm_engine_rcs_engine_info {
...
/existing_stuff/
...
#define HAS_TOPOLOGY
u32 flags;
struct {
u32 this;
u32 that;
...
u8 mask[SOME_FUTURE_PROOF_NUMBER];
} slice_topology;
struct {
u32 this;
u32 that;
...
u8 mask[SOME_FUTURE_PROOF_NUMBER];
} subslice_topology;
struct {
u32 this;
u32 that;
...
u8 mask[SOME_FUTURE_PROOF_NUMBER];
} eu_topology;
};
I'm pretty sure we'll need to expose more than these 3 properties here
(slice/subslice/eus) soon.
Some of the components residing in the subslice could be of interest.
So I'm reluctant to have all of this within a single struct which we
can't change the size of.
The struct size doesn't have to be fixed, just reported. The underlying
question is can we construct an interface that is flexible enough?
Something along the lines of perf (GL even) where the output format is
constructed by request from the user, then we only need to declare how
long each field will be, get to the user allocate the buffer, then fill
on the second pass.
Alternatively we output some ASN string?
I don't want to overengineer, but at the same time this looks to be the
perfect excuse to require enough flexibility to cater for future
complexity without going too meta. :)
-Chris
Heh, so one ioctl to get the string, another ioctl to get the data?
And a list of enum for all the properties you can list?
Unrelated question, have you considered ASN to describe the error
state layout?
Or we go with sysfs, plain and simple?
$ cat $i915root/engine/vcs0/info
hevc
$ cat $i915root/engine/vcs1/instance
1
$ cat $i915root/engine/rcs0/class
render
...
$i915root/gpu/topology/slice_mask
Should be able to design to avoid issues with extensibility and avoids
the need to come up with complex binary structures or even adding new
protocols like the ASN mentioned above.
?
Tvrtko
I guess that works too. What layout would fit for the other bits of
topology though? :
topology/slice_mask
topology/slice0/subslice_mask
topology/slice0/subslice0/eu_mask
topology/slice0/subslice1/eu_mask
topology/slice0/subslice2/eu_mask
topology/slice1/subslice_mask
...
topology/slice2/subslice_mask
...
Or something flatter but then you could need lines in the files to split
things by slice/subslice.
-
Lionel
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
