> -----Original Message----- > From: Chris Wilson [mailto:chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Monday, June 23, 2014 2:14 PM > To: Mateo Lozano, Oscar > Cc: Volkin, Bradley D; intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [PATCH 26/53] drm/i915/bdw: New logical ring > submission mechanism > > On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 01:09:37PM +0000, Mateo Lozano, Oscar wrote: > > So far, yes, but that´s only because I artificially made intel_lrc.c self- > contained, as Daniel requested. What if we need to execute commands from > somewhere else, like in intel_gen7_queue_flip()? > > > > And this takes me to another discussion: this logical ring vs legacy ring split > is probably a good idea (time will tell), but we should provide a way of > sending commands for execution without knowing if Execlists are enabled or > not. In the early series that was easy because we reused the ring_begin, > ring_emit & ring_advance functions, but this is not the case anymore. And > without this, sooner or later somebody will break legacy or execlists (this > already happened last week, when somebody here was implementing native > sync without knowing about Execlists). > > > > So, the questions is: how do you feel about a dev_priv.gt vfunc that takes a > context, a ring, an array of DWORDS and a BB length and does the > intel_(logical)_ring_begin/emit/advance based on i915.enable_execlists? > > I'm still baffled by the design. intel_ring_begin() and friends should be able to > find their context (logical or legacy) from the ring and dtrt. > -Chris Sorry, Chris, I obviously don´t have the same experience with 915 you have: how do you propose to extract the right context from the ring? _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
