On 1/16/20 2:49 PM, Michal Wajdeczko wrote:
- if (USES_GUC_SUBMISSION(dev_priv)) {
+ if (intel_uc_uses_guc_submission(&dev_priv->gt.uc)) {
nit: that old macro was helpful exactly in cases where only dev_priv
is known and component might have no idea where to find uc
maybe we should have helper like:
#define to_intel_uc(i915) (&(i915)->gt.uc)
(but likely Jani will complain)
IMO the problem here is that we shouldn't really be going down to the
uc from the dev_priv level, as intel_uc is now a subfeature of the GT.
We've already removed a lot of the existing checks at the dev_priv
level and this series gets rid of a few more; I guess once they're
reduced enough in number we can consider replacing them with a check
at the GT level.
so maybe we should introduce right now:
static inline bool intel_gt_uses_guc_submission(struct intel_gt *gt)
{
return intel_uc_uses_guc_submission(>->uc);
}
and use it where we operate at gt level
The problem is that with the gvt code is actually initialized before we
commit to using GuC submission and patch 3 changes the check from uses
to wants, so that's quite a specific case which I'm not sure is worth
the helper yet. That's why I wanted to wait until things settle down a
bit more to understand what was left before adding a high-level "wants"
helper, which IMO is not the best suited for a GT level check.
Daniele
Michal
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
