On 24/05/2018 17:13, Lionel Landwerlin wrote:
On 24/05/18 17:07, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 24/05/2018 16:53, Lionel Landwerlin wrote:
On 24/05/18 16:04, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx>
Instead of using the engine->id, use uabi_class:instance pairs in
trace-
points including engine info.
This will be more readable, more future proof and more stable for
userspace consumption.
Signed-off-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: svetlana.kukanova@xxxxxxxxx
Don't you want engine->uabi_id instead of engine->instance ?
No, class:instance is the new engine identifier - why do you think we
would need legacy engine->uabi_id?
Maybe I forgot about your engine listing series...
I would expect the tracepoint to match the engines listed through that
uapi.
Yeah I don't have engine->uabi_id exported in engine discovery. I could
add it, but given how we don't plan to extend it (the legacy engine
selection), I think it is not needed. If there will be popular demand
though can do it.
Regards,
Tvrtko
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
