Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2018-05-25 08:11:41) > > 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. Also that we plan to conflate the I915_EXEC_RING selector so that engine->uabi_id would no longer be a unique mapping, will add to the confusion. -Chris _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
