Quoting Matthew Auld (2019-06-27 21:56:30)
> +int i915_gem_setparam_ioctl(struct drm_device *dev, void *data,
> + struct drm_file *file)
> +{
> + struct drm_i915_gem_context_param *args = data;
The plan was to use the upper_32_bits() or whatever as the class. To
future proof, I would recommend being more explicit with a switch.
> + if (args->param <= I915_CONTEXT_PARAM_MAX)
> + return i915_gem_context_setparam_ioctl(dev, data, file);
> +
> + return i915_gem_object_setparam_ioctl(dev, data, file);
> +}
> /* Allow drivers to submit batchbuffers directly to hardware, relying
> * on the security mechanisms provided by hardware.
> @@ -1595,11 +1597,36 @@ struct drm_i915_gem_context_param {
> * i915_context_engines_bond (I915_CONTEXT_ENGINES_EXT_BOND)
> */
> #define I915_CONTEXT_PARAM_ENGINES 0xa
> +
> +#define I915_CONTEXT_PARAM_MAX 0xffffffff
> /* Must be kept compact -- no holes and well documented */
Hahaha. Good one.
The rest of the patch is clearly very early proof of concept as it needs
the locking reworked.
-Chris
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
