On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 11:22:00AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > For some reason snb has 2 fields to set ppgtt cacheability. This one > here does not exist on gen7. > > This might explain why ppgtt wasn't a win on snb like on ivb - not > enough pte caching. So, is it a win now? > > Signed-Off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter at ffwll.ch> > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c | 3 +++ > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h | 4 ++++ > 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c > index 5dc5f42..cab70ef 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c > @@ -3766,6 +3766,9 @@ void i915_gem_init_ppgtt(struct drm_device *dev) > if (INTEL_INFO(dev)->gen == 6) { > uint32_t ecochk, gab_ctl, ecobits; > > + ecobits = I915_READ(GAC_ECO_BITS); > + I915_WRITE(GAC_ECO_BITS, ecobits | ECOBITS_PPGTT_CACHE64B); > + > gab_ctl = I915_READ(GAB_CTL); > I915_WRITE(GAB_CTL, gab_ctl | GAB_CTL_CONT_AFTER_PAGEFAULT); > Is this a bad rebase? This doesn't apply to whatever I am using. > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h > index e72c251..5457980 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h > @@ -125,6 +125,10 @@ > #define ECOCHK_PPGTT_CACHE64B (0x3<<3) > #define ECOCHK_PPGTT_CACHE4B (0x0<<3) > > +#define GAC_ECO_BITS 0x14090 > +#define ECOBITS_PPGTT_CACHE64B (3<<8) > +#define ECOBITS_PPGTT_CACHE4B (0<<8) > + > #define GAB_CTL 0x24000 > #define GAB_CTL_CONT_AFTER_PAGEFAULT (1<<8) > According to bspec, but 13 must be set to a 1 also.