Hi Jonathan,
few little things...
On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 11:51:03AM -0700, Jonathan Cavitt wrote:
> From: Nirmoy Das <nirmoy.das@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> Apply WABB blit for Wa_16018031267 / Wa_16018063123.
> Additionally, update the lrc selftest to exercise the new
> WABB changes.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jonathan Cavitt <jonathan.cavitt@xxxxxxxxx>
> Co-developed-by: Nirmoy Das <nirmoy.das@xxxxxxxxx>
As the sender of this patch, your SoB should be last and you also
need to add Nirmoy's SoB above yours.
(Tags should be added in chronological order)
[...]
> +static u32 *
> +xehp_emit_per_ctx_bb(const struct intel_context *ce, u32 *cs)
> +{
> + /* Wa_16018031267, Wa_16018063123 */
> + if (ce->engine->class == COPY_ENGINE_CLASS &&
> + NEEDS_FASTCOLOR_BLT_WABB(ce->engine->i915))
> + cs = xehp_emit_fastcolor_blt_wabb(ce, cs);
I thought the trend was to have things like:
..._needs_wa_16018031267()
But we don't have a unified system yet
> + return cs;
> +}
> +
> +
two blank lines here
> +static void
> +setup_per_ctx_bb(const struct intel_context *ce,
> + const struct intel_engine_cs *engine,
> + u32 *(*emit)(const struct intel_context *, u32 *))
> +{
[...]
> static u32 *
> -emit_indirect_ctx_bb_canary(const struct intel_context *ce, u32 *cs)
> +emit_wabb_ctx_canary(const struct intel_context *ce,
> + u32 *cs, bool per_ctx)
just a little alignment issue here.
> {
[...]
Are the failures from CI coming from this series?
Andi
