Quoting Michal Wajdeczko (2017-12-07 23:30:54)
> On Thu, 07 Dec 2017 22:02:59 +0100, Chris Wilson
> <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Recently the kernel has switched to using a combined i915.enable_guc
> > rather than multiple i915.enable_guc_submission parameters.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdeczko@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > lib/i915/gem_submission.c | 5 +++++
> > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/lib/i915/gem_submission.c b/lib/i915/gem_submission.c
> > index 8bff4844f..1414c7138 100644
> > --- a/lib/i915/gem_submission.c
> > +++ b/lib/i915/gem_submission.c
> > @@ -75,6 +75,11 @@ unsigned gem_submission_method(int fd)
> > if (dir < 0)
> > return 0;
> > + if (igt_sysfs_get_u32(dir, "enable_guc") & 1) {
> > + flags |= GEM_SUBMISSION_GUC | GEM_SUBMISSION_EXECLISTS;
>
> Hmm, maybe I'm missing something, but as modparam represents actual driver
> mode of operation where value '1' represents GuC submission mode and as we
> no longer support fallback to execlist mode, I'm not sure that we should
> turn on the second GEM_SUBMISSION_EXECLISTS bit here.
Execlists really means ring-per-context / lrc, as opposed to that we are
directly programming ELSP. If you feel creative, GEM_foo_LRC. (In tests
where is matters, it is used to determine if we can rely on having
independent rings between contexts.)
> But since old modparam was interpreted in the similar way,
But you were meant to say "time for a GETPARAM!" Which will be a sad day
as it means that GuC represents an ABI break... :-p
-Chris
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
