On Sat, Feb 10, 2018 at 08:39:08AM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote: > Quoting Oscar Mateo (2018-02-09 23:46:31) > > > > On 02/09/2018 02:35 PM, Chris Wilson wrote: > > > In order to allow the compiler to use a known constant number of > > > available engines, disable modification of intel_device_static_info > > > during engine bring up. Instead of trying to gracefully hide the broken > > > setup, error out -- in theory, this should be caught during power on. > > > > We are about to have a case for dynamic number of available engines. > > It's one of the ICL patches: > > > > drm/i915/icl: Check for fused-off VDBOX and VEBOX instances > > > > intel_device_runtime_info as well? > > Hmm, ring_mask is more widely used than I was expecting. I think we want > both, static_info if we ever think we can benefit from single-platform > LTO of the engines, but whether to use runtime_info or i915->gt.engine_mask > (and move the engine maps to i915->gt as well). > > Advantage of runtime_info, centralised place for debugging. > Disadvantage of runtime_info, centralised place far from code. > > Maybe we don't need to say everything is inside runtime_info (just > anything that doesn't fit elsewhere?), but use the hooks for debugging? > Maybe having a central runtime_info is simply a bad idea? Yeah, I don't like the "far from the code" aspect of runtime_info (or even the static info in some cases). Another counter argument is perhaps that people are more likely to update the info for new platforms if it's in a central location, as opposed having to trawl the entire codebase. -- Ville Syrjälä Intel OTC _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
