On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 05:16:57PM +0300, Mika Kuoppala wrote: > Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > On Fri, 26 Sep 2014, Mika Kuoppala <mika.kuoppala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> > >>> This helps when including or removing cs workarounds. > >>> Signed-off-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@xxxxxxxxx> > >>> --- > >>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.c | 16 ++++++++++++---- > >>> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > >>> > >>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.c > >>> index 7c3d17a..39fbea6 100644 > >>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.c > >>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.c > >>> @@ -694,6 +694,7 @@ static int bdw_init_workarounds(struct intel_engine_cs *ring) > >>> int ret; > >>> struct drm_device *dev = ring->dev; > >>> struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = dev->dev_private; > >>> + int wa_amount; > >>> > >>> /* > >>> * workarounds applied in this fn are part of register state context, > >>> @@ -704,10 +705,11 @@ static int bdw_init_workarounds(struct intel_engine_cs *ring) > >>> memset(dev_priv->intel_wa_regs, 0, sizeof(dev_priv->intel_wa_regs)); > >>> > >>> /* > >>> - * update the number of dwords required based on the > >>> - * actual number of workarounds applied > >>> + * update the number of workarounds when adding or removing was > >>> + * in order the have propper dwords > >>> */ > >>> - ret = intel_ring_begin(ring, 24); > >>> + wa_amount = 8; > >>> + ret = intel_ring_begin(ring, 3 * wa_amount); > >>> if (ret) > >>> return ret; > >>> > >> > >> I have a bit mixed feelings with this patch as I have tripped > >> around here myself recently. > >> > >> I think we should just drop this patch and use: > >> ret = intel_ring_begin(ring, 3 * <amount>) on the subsequent > >> patches that modify the amount. > >> > >> This way the intel_ring_begin will always be the one that > >> shows in a diff. And raises alarm if it doesnt. We don't want > >> this to be too transparent and looking too easy for the next reader. > >> As the reviewer is the only and last line of defense ensuring > >> symmetry between intel_ring_begin and amount of emits. > > > > Considering intel_ring_emit_wa() adds all the needed information to > > dev_priv->intel_wa_regs and dev_priv->num_wa_regs anyway, we could > > trivially split this into constructing dev_priv->intel_wa_regs first, > > and doing intel_ring_begin() and the intel_ring_emit()s next, and not > > worry about this again. > > My RFC series of fixing the workarounds after reset/suspend does this. And so did mine! :-p -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
