On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 02:52:40PM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote: > This appears to not actually be needed on the current code. Just putting > it on the ML so we can point bug reports at it later. > > As pointed out by Ville, the current code is "broken" since we do > FORCE_RESTORE, and RESTORE_INHIBIT on the same dword. Anecdotally, this > seems fine. > > Signed-off-by: Ben Widawsky <ben@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_context.c | 7 +++++++ > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_context.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_context.c > index f77b4c1..aa82fb4 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_context.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_context.c > @@ -661,6 +661,13 @@ static int do_switch(struct intel_ring_buffer *ring, > if (!to->is_initialized || i915_gem_context_is_default(to)) > hw_flags |= MI_RESTORE_INHIBIT; > > + /* When SW intends to use semaphore signaling between Command streamers, > + * it must avoid lite restores in HW by programming "Force Restore" bit > + * to ‘1’ in context descriptor during context submission > + */ > + if (IS_GEN8(ring->dev) && i915_semaphore_is_enabled(ring->dev)) > + hw_flags |= MI_FORCE_RESTORE; Is it not an error to set both FORCE and INHIBIT? -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
