On Tue, 2022-11-22 at 12:57 -0500, Vivi, Rodrigo wrote: > > [Alan:snip] > As I had told I don't have a strong preference, as long as it keep clean > and without these many helpers of something "on_gt"... > > If this stays inside the gt, just make sure that you call for all the gts, > but then you inside the functions you can skip if pxp not enabled... without > asking if enabled on_gt... > I think we have here conflicting requests. The "consumers" of pxp feature are gem-execbuf, gem-context, gem-create (and even display, for checking). Are we okay with making these callers be aware of "if mtl, ensure i call intel_pxp_foo with the media-tile's pxp, agnostic to the request, context or buffer i am dealing with now". If you are okay with this, then we can make this stay inside gt without "enabled on_gt" functions. But if dont want to polute such low level backend awareness into those upper layers, we need them to call something more global like "intel_gpu_has_pxp_enabled" or "intel_gpu_has_pxp_started" at the least with an i915 param. So that these callers dont need to worry about it. Or intel_pxp_enabled has to internally check with gt we are being passed with and verify we are on the correct gt to - but you said you dont want to have an "enabled on_gt" inside the pxp folder since pxp is a subset of gt. The only thing i can think of is just a rename - i.e. instead of "intel_pxp_enabled_on_gt", have a "intel_gpu_has_pxp_enabled(i915)" - but it would reside in the pxp folder. Would this work? > > > > ...alan
