On Mon, Nov 28, 2022 at 03:43:52PM +0530, Aravind Iddamsetty wrote:
From: Pallavi Mishra <pallavi.mishra@xxxxxxxxx>
Caching mode for an object shall be selected via upcoming VM_BIND
interface.
last I've heard there was no plan to support this through VM_BIND. Did
anything change? Otherwise this needs a better explanation recorded in
the cover letter.
According to e7737b67ab46 ("drm/i915/uapi: reject caching ioctls for discrete")
it seems it was already planned to extend this to all platforms.
+Daniel, +Matt Auld
Cc: Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Matt Roper <matthew.d.roper@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Pallavi Mishra <pallavi.mishra@xxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Aravind Iddamsetty <aravind.iddamsetty@xxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_domain.c | 3 +++
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_domain.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_domain.c
index d44a152ce680..aebbfe186143 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_domain.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_domain.c
@@ -332,6 +332,9 @@ int i915_gem_set_caching_ioctl(struct drm_device *dev, void *data,
if (IS_DGFX(i915))
return -ENODEV;
+ if (GRAPHICS_VER_FULL(i915) >= IP_VER(12, 70))
+ return -EOPNOTSUPP;
Why a different return? Should this be treated similar to the IS_DGFX()
case above? It seems we are also missing an equivalent change in
i915_gem_get_caching_ioctl().
include/uapi/drm/i915_drm.h also needs to be updated with documentation
about this behavior. See the commit mentioned above.
Lucas De Marchi
+
switch (args->caching) {
case I915_CACHING_NONE:
level = I915_CACHE_NONE;
--
2.25.1
