On 29-11-2022 01:49, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
> 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.
@Niranjana, We do plan to support this via VM_BIND in future is it not?
Thanks,
Aravind.
>
> 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
>>
