On Tue, 17 Dec 2019 02:23:13 +0100, Daniele Ceraolo Spurio
<daniele.ceraolospurio@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
For better isolation of the request tracking from the rest of the
CT-related data.
v2: split to separate patch, move next_fence to substructure (Michal)
Signed-off-by: Daniele Ceraolo Spurio <daniele.ceraolospurio@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdeczko@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: John Harrison <John.C.Harrison@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Matthew Brost <matthew.brost@xxxxxxxxx>
---
Reviewed-by: Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdeczko@xxxxxxxxx>
with some nits below (we may fix them later)
/snip/
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_ct.h
b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_ct.h
index 6e3d789b9f01..29a026dc3a13 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_ct.h
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_ct.h
@@ -48,12 +48,15 @@ struct intel_guc_ct {
/* buffers for sending(0) and receiving(1) commands */
struct intel_guc_ct_buffer ctbs[2];
- u32 next_fence; /* fence to be used with next send command */
+ struct {
+ u32 next_fence; /* fence to be used with next request to send */
nit: strictly speaking this is "last" fence
we just use it to generate next one
- spinlock_t lock; /* protects pending requests list */
- struct list_head pending_requests; /* requests waiting for response */
- struct list_head incoming_requests; /* incoming requests */
- struct work_struct worker; /* handler for incoming requests */
+ spinlock_t lock; /* protects pending requests list */
nit: do we want to use this lock to protect "next/last" fence ?
if yes, then maybe lock shall be first ?
+ struct list_head pending; /* requests waiting for response */
+
+ struct list_head incoming; /* incoming requests */
+ struct work_struct worker; /* handler for incoming requests */
+ } requests;
};
void intel_guc_ct_init_early(struct intel_guc_ct *ct);
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
