so please, just ignore this patch anyway. On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 7:56 AM, Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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 -- Rodrigo Vivi Blog: http://blog.vivi.eng.br _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
