Quoting Mika Kuoppala (2019-11-12 14:13:56) > Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > Be consistent in our mocs setup on Tigerlake and set the unused control > > value to follow the PTE entry as we previously have done. The unused > > values are beyond the defines of the ABI, the consistency simplifies our > > checking. > > Simplifies how? Because all platforms follow the same pattern, we only need one routine not multiples. > > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_mocs.c | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_mocs.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_mocs.c > > index 6e881c735b20..d2b445d6c258 100644 > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_mocs.c > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_mocs.c > > @@ -489,7 +489,7 @@ static void intel_mocs_init_global(struct intel_gt *gt) > > for (; index < table.n_entries; index++) > > intel_uncore_write(uncore, > > GEN12_GLOBAL_MOCS(index), > > - table.table[0].control_value); > > + table.table[I915_MOCS_PTE].control_value); > > This sets it point into reserved, so I am confused. Outside of the ABI. > Also the comment above and the part in generic MOCS tables will > be stale. Look at the next pair of patches for removing most of the file, now possible because the dissimilarity is removed. -Chris _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
