On Thu, 29 May 2014 08:30:10 -0700
"Volkin, Bradley D" <bradley.d.volkin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 03:02:24PM -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> > Need testing and possibly disabling on earlier steppings, but looks ok
> > here on my B3.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
> > index ec5f6fb..4b0e58c 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
> > @@ -1971,7 +1971,7 @@ struct drm_i915_cmd_table {
> >
> > #define HAS_HW_CONTEXTS(dev) (INTEL_INFO(dev)->gen >= 6)
> > #define HAS_ALIASING_PPGTT(dev) (INTEL_INFO(dev)->gen >= 6 && !IS_VALLEYVIEW(dev))
> > -#define HAS_PPGTT(dev) (INTEL_INFO(dev)->gen >= 7 && !IS_VALLEYVIEW(dev) \
> > +#define HAS_PPGTT(dev) (INTEL_INFO(dev)->gen >= 7 \
> > && !IS_BROADWELL(dev))
>
> Which branch is this against? In -nightly, these are implemented
> differently, so I don't know if all comments will apply. But...
>
> Since IS_VALLEYVIEW() is also true for chv, should we make the condition
> !IS_CHERRYVIEW() in this patch instead? Or do we intend to have PPGTT
> enabled for chv?
>
> I think we need the corresponding change to HAS_ALIASING_PPGTT() in order
> to actually enable PPGTT. Otherwise it looks like sanitize_enable_ppgtt()
> will disable PPGTT.
I knew this was too easy, maybe that's why it worked so well for Ville
and I... unless I was somehow testing full PPGTT. I'll check it out.
--
Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
