Quoting Michal Wajdeczko (2019-05-17 18:11:07) > On Fri, 17 May 2019 18:31:31 +0200, Chris Wilson > <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Quoting Michal Wajdeczko (2019-05-17 17:22:25) > >> We may skip reset preparation steps if GuC is already sanitized. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdeczko@xxxxxxxxx> > >> Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> Cc: Daniele Ceraolo Spurio <daniele.ceraolospurio@xxxxxxxxx> > >> --- > >> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uc.c | 3 +++ > >> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) > >> > >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uc.c > >> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uc.c > >> index 86edfa5ad72e..36c53a42927c 100644 > >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uc.c > >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uc.c > >> @@ -499,6 +499,9 @@ void intel_uc_reset_prepare(struct drm_i915_private > >> *i915) > >> if (!USES_GUC(i915)) > >> return; > >> > >> + if (!intel_guc_is_alive(guc)) > >> + return; > > > > Does it not replace "if (!USES_GUC(i915))"? > > Yes it can, as we will never fetch/upload fw if we don't plan to use it ;) > > Btw, I'm thinking of renaming intel_guc_is_alive to intel_guc_is_loaded > or intel_guc_is_started to better describe what this function is reporting, > as one can think that intel_guc_is_alive is actually checking that GuC fw > is responsive, which in general might not be the same as "loaded" Either seems reasonable, though there might be good reason to have both :) intel_guc_is_loaded intel_guc_has_started / intel_guc_is_active -chris _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
