On Wed, Mar 06, 2019 at 10:55:01AM -0800, Lucas De Marchi wrote: > On Wed, Mar 06, 2019 at 07:55:33PM +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > >On Wed, Mar 06, 2019 at 09:42:57AM -0800, Lucas De Marchi wrote: > >> On Wed, Mar 06, 2019 at 05:13:39PM +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > >> >On Wed, Mar 06, 2019 at 02:55:58PM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote: > >> >> Quoting Ville Syrjälä (2019-03-06 14:52:11) > >> >> > On Wed, Mar 06, 2019 at 09:31:48AM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote: > >> >> > > Quoting Ville Syrjala (2019-03-05 19:29:05) > >> >> > > > From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > At some point people have started to assume that > >> >> > > > pipe_offsets[] & co. are only populated for pipes and whatnot > >> >> > > > that actually exist. That is in fact not currently true, but > >> >> > > > we can easily make it so. > >> >> > > > >> >> > > Any benefits of knock on effect? > >> >> > > >> >> > What kind of knock on effect we're thinking? > >> >> > >> >> Just wondering why people are eager to make the assumption that > >> >> non-existent pipes are not set. I presume its to make code neater. > >> >> > >> >> i.e. why cater to their whims at all? > >> > > >> >Yeah, I guess this was done just to avoid having convoluted platform > >> >checks all over. I've not checked the code to see if there are > >> >more places where we could simplify the existing code by adopting > >> >this approach. > >> > > >> >However now that you forced me to think a bit I realize that this > >> >may break in the presence of fused off pipes. Not quite sure how > >> >the registers for such fused off blocks would behave. If we aren't > >> >allowed to touch those registers we'd need to move this stuff > >> >into the runtime info. That feels a bit wasteful, so as an > >> >alternative we could just add one or two bitmasks instead. > >> > > >> >Cc:ing Lucas who seems to the main offender here... > >> > >> humn.. is this about the EDP transcoder? Missing some context here. > >> Did I miss any platform not setting trans_offsets for TRANSCODER_EDP, > >> even if it has? glancing over the possible mistake.... chv? :-/ > > > >Currently .trans_offsets[TRANSCODER_EDP] != 0 on _every_ platform. > > the commit was made to _allow_ platforms not to have the edp transcoder > so we don't need to keep adding platform checks when the needs arrise. Most of the platforms don't have EDP transcoder. > > checking now that that probably broke chv though. No, chv is fine. All pre-hsw platforms are busted though. -- Ville Syrjälä Intel _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
