Quoting Matthew Auld (2019-10-29 09:58:54) > From: Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdeczko@xxxxxxxxx> > > HWS placement restrictions can't just rely on HAS_LLC flag. > > Signed-off-by: Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdeczko@xxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Matthew Auld <matthew.auld@xxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Daniele Ceraolo Spurio <daniele.ceraolospurio@xxxxxxxxx> > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_engine_cs.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_engine_cs.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_engine_cs.c > index 9cc1ea6519ec..355523114c71 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_engine_cs.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_engine_cs.c > @@ -528,7 +528,7 @@ static int pin_ggtt_status_page(struct intel_engine_cs *engine, > unsigned int flags; > > flags = PIN_GLOBAL; > - if (!HAS_LLC(engine->i915)) > + if (!HAS_LLC(engine->i915) && i915_ggtt_has_aperture(engine->gt->ggtt)) > /* > * On g33, we cannot place HWS above 256MiB, so > * restrict its pinning to the low mappable arena. How we will laugh if it turns out future HW cannot handle having the HWSP placed anywhere! :) Acked-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> -Chris _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
