On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 10:43:30PM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote: > On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 09:55:27AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 04:30:58PM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote: > > > Pin doesn't fit with PPGTT since the interface doesn't allow for the > > > context for which we want to pin. > > > > Nak. Pin still retains it semantics with the gtt and only applies to the > > gtt. > > > Here is the error I have on pin. I was trying to debug it previously but > got sidetracked. I thought some combo of EXEC_GTT flag and hacks would > make it work, but I never finished. Maybe you know offhand what I've > messed up, and the right way to fix it? > > gem_pin: gem_pin.c:84: exec: Assertion `gem_exec[0].offset == offset' failed. Ok, that is a condition that no longer holds with full ppgtt. Now fortunately, userspace that might depend upon that is limited to DRI1 era machines (at least in the userspace I know about) and we can just update the test to understand that pinning and exec are two different address spaces. How do you handle EXEC_OBJECT_NEEDS_GTT? As that may be an acceptable w/a. Or just skip that portion of the test if PRAM_HAS_FULL_PPGTT. Soft pinning should be tested separately (so that it isn't confused with pinning to the ggtt), but that is also a viable solution to this portion of the test. -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre
