On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 10:39:39PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 04:36:05PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 04:29:24PM +0100, Thomas Daniel wrote: > > > These two functions make no sense in an Logical Ring Context & Execlists > > > world. > > > > > > v2: We got rid of lrc_enabled and centralized everything in the sanitized > > > i915.enable_execlists instead. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Oscar Mateo <oscar.mateo@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > v3: Rebased. Corrected a typo in comment for i915_switch_context and > > > added a comment that it should not be called in execlist mode. Added > > > WARN_ON if i915_switch_context is called in execlist mode. Moved check > > > for execlist mode out of i915_switch_context and into callers. Added > > > comment in context_reset explaining why nothing is done in execlist > > > mode. > > > > No, this is not the way. The requirement is to reduce the number of > > special cases not increase them. These should be evaluated to be no-ops > > when execlists is used. > > I think it's ok-ish for now. Maybe we need to reconsider when we wire up > lrc reclaim - which is the real user of the switch_context in gpu_idle. > The problem I have though is that I can't parse the subject of the patch, > someone please translate that to simplified English for me. I can do the > replacement while applying. No, it is not. execlists is badly designed and this is a further symptom of that. -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
