On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 01:34:20PM -0800, Daniele Ceraolo Spurio wrote:
On 12/11/19 1:22 PM, Chris Wilson wrote:
Quoting Daniele Ceraolo Spurio (2019-12-11 21:12:42)
Having the virtual engine handling in its own file will make it easier
call it from or modify for the GuC implementation without leaking the
changes in the context management or execlists submission paths.
No. The virtual engine is tightly coupled into the execlists, it is not
the starting point for a general veng.
-Chris
What's the issue from your POV? We've been using it with little
changes for GuC submission and IMO it flows relatively well, mainly
just using a different tasklet and slightly different cops (need to
call into GuC for pin/unpin).
Daniele
I agree with Daniele's approach here. The new GuC code can reuse
intel_execlists_create_virtual with a couple of GuC specific branches in the
function. The new GuC also reuses virtual_engine_enter / virtual_engine_exit in
the virtual GuC context operations. To me it makes more sense to have this
virtual engine code in its' own file than polluting an execlist specific file
with references to the GuC.
Matt
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
