Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Mon, 22 Jan 2018, Mika Kuoppala <mika.kuoppala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >>> On Mon, 08 Jan 2018, Mika Kuoppala <mika.kuoppala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> Add option to specify engine for register read/write operation. >>>> If engine is specified, use MI_LOAD_REGISTER_IMM and MI_STORE_REGISTER_IMM >>>> to write and read register using a batch targeted at that engine. >>> >>> Copy-pasting from the man page, we already have the notation: >>> >>> "Registers are defined as [(PORTNAME|PORTNUM|MMIO-OFFSET):](REGNAME|REGADDR)." >>> >>> Why don't we add this as ENGINE:REGNAME or something instead of an extra >>> --engine parameter? As a "port". Sure, it's more work, but I really like >>> the current possibility of reading all types of registers at once. Now >>> you prevent dumps that would contain both mmio and batch based reads. >>> >> >> Are you ok with the latest version? As discussed in irc, there are >> problems with trying to add engines as ports, due to dynamic nature >> and also that the existing infra relies on PORTNAME being mmio >> for symbolic register dumping to work correctly. >> >> for the wart of if (reg->engine) in read/write paths >> we gain the benefits of mmio dumps with engines. > > Can't say I would've reviewed all the engine bits and pieces, but > > Acked-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxx> Thanks for ack and review. Pushed. -Mika _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
