On 4/25/2023 10:55, Teres Alexis, Alan Previn wrote:
On Thu, 2023-04-06 at 15:26 -0700, Harrison, John C wrote:From: John Harrison <John.C.Harrison@xxxxxxxxx> A pair of pre-Xe registers were being included in the Xe capture list. GuC was rejecting those as being invalid and logging errors about them. So, stop doing it.alan:snip#define COMMON_GEN9BASE_GLOBAL \ - { GEN8_FAULT_TLB_DATA0, 0, 0, "GEN8_FAULT_TLB_DATA0" }, \ - { GEN8_FAULT_TLB_DATA1, 0, 0, "GEN8_FAULT_TLB_DATA1" }, \ { ERROR_GEN6, 0, 0, "ERROR_GEN6" }, \ { DONE_REG, 0, 0, "DONE_REG" }, \ { HSW_GTT_CACHE_EN, 0, 0, "HSW_GTT_CACHE_EN" }+#define GEN9_GLOBAL \+ { GEN8_FAULT_TLB_DATA0, 0, 0, "GEN8_FAULT_TLB_DATA0" }, \ + { GEN8_FAULT_TLB_DATA1, 0, 0, "GEN8_FAULT_TLB_DATA1" } + #define COMMON_GEN12BASE_GLOBAL \ { GEN12_FAULT_TLB_DATA0, 0, 0, "GEN12_FAULT_TLB_DATA0" }, \ { GEN12_FAULT_TLB_DATA1, 0, 0, "GEN12_FAULT_TLB_DATA1" }, \ @@ -142,6 +144,7 @@ static const struct __guc_mmio_reg_descr xe_lpd_gsc_inst_regs[] = { static const struct __guc_mmio_reg_descr default_global_regs[] = { COMMON_BASE_GLOBAL, COMMON_GEN9BASE_GLOBAL, + GEN9_GLOBAL, };alan: splitting out a couple registers from COMMON_GEN9BASE_GLOBAL into GEN9_GLOBAL doesn't seem to communicate the intent of fix for this patch. This is more of a naming, thing and i am not sure what counter-proposal will work well in terms of readibility. One idea: perhaps we rename "COMMON_GEN9BASE_GLOBAL" to "COMMON_GEN9PLUS_BASE_GLOBAL" and rename GEN9_GLOBAL to COMMON_GEN9LEGACY_GLOBAL. so we would have two gen9-global with a clear distinction in naming where one is "GEN9PLUS" and the other is "GEN9LEGACY". But since this is a list-naming thing, i am okay either above change... OR... keeping the same but with the condition of adding a comment under COMMON_GEN9BASE_GLOBAL and GEN9_GLOBAL names that explain the differences where one is gen9-legacy and the other is gen9-and-future that carries over to beyond Gen9. (side note: coding style wise, is it possible to add the comment right under the #define line as opposed to under the entire list?) (conditional) Reviewed-by: Alan Previn <alan.previn.teres.alexis@xxxxxxxxx>
I'm not entirely sure what you are arguing here.My reading of the original code is that COMMON_GENX_ means the registers were introduced on the named device but a are common to later devices. Whereas GENX_ means the registers are specific to that device alone. That seems a pretty straight forward and simple naming scheme to me.
John.
