On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 11:05:15AM -0800, Ben Widawsky wrote: > On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 07:33:11PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 09:24:34AM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 09:38:56AM -0800, Ben Widawsky wrote: > > > > The actual post sync op is "Write Immediate Data QWord." It is therefore > > > > arguable that we should have always done a qword write. > > > > > > Not really since the spec explicitly says that we can choose either a > > > dword or qword write. Note that qword writes also currently require a > > > 64 byte alignment. > > > > Yeah, that's also my reading of the spec - the lenght field selects > > whether the hw does a qword or dword write, and the qword needs to be > > specially aligned. > > -Daniel > > I think both of you only read this sentence, where I said it was > "arguable." The rest of the commit message was what actually mattered. I'm just arguing that the changelog is misleading. What we are doing is papering over an elephant, and more importantly I think it overlooked the extra restrictions imposed upon qwords (though it looks like we fortuituously are ok). The changelog also implies that all our other code is similarly flawed. The actual patch of splitting the code up into separate gen8 routines I thought was a nice improvement in readibility. -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
