> -----Original Message----- > From: Arun Siluvery [mailto:arun.siluvery@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Monday, January 25, 2016 6:04 PM > To: Chris Wilson; Gore, Tim; Mika Kuoppala; intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] drm/i915: add function for GT related > workarounds > > On 25/01/2016 17:10, Chris Wilson wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 04:41:42PM +0000, Arun Siluvery wrote: > >> On 25/01/2016 16:17, Chris Wilson wrote: > >>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 02:43:06PM +0000, Gore, Tim wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Tim Gore > >>>> Intel Corporation (UK) Ltd. - Co. Reg. #1134945 - Pipers Way, > >>>> Swindon SN3 1RJ > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>> From: Mika Kuoppala [mailto:mika.kuoppala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > >>>>> Sent: Monday, January 25, 2016 2:39 PM > >>>>> To: Gore, Tim; intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > >>>>> Cc: Gore, Tim; arun.siluvery@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > >>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] drm/i915: add function for GT related > >>>>> workarounds > >>>>> > >>>>> tim.gore@xxxxxxxxx writes: > >>>>> > >>>>>> From: Tim Gore <tim.gore@xxxxxxxxx> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Add a function that is a place for workarounds that are GT > >>>>>> related but not required per ring. This function is called on > >>>>>> driver load and also after a reset and on resume, so it is safe > >>>>>> for workarounds that get clobbered in these situations. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Tim Gore <tim.gore@xxxxxxxxx> > >>>>>> --- > >>>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_gtt.c | 12 ++++++++++++ > >>>>>> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_gtt.c > >>>>>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_gtt.c > >>>>>> index 7377b67..fe960d5 100644 > >>>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_gtt.c > >>>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_gtt.c > >>>>>> @@ -2132,6 +2132,16 @@ static void i915_address_space_init(struct > >>>>> i915_address_space *vm, > >>>>>> list_add_tail(&vm->global_link, &dev_priv->vm_list); } > >>>>>> > >>>>>> +void gtt_write_workarounds(struct drm_device *dev) { > >>>>> > >>>>> static void > >>>>> > >>>>> This can be squashed with 2/3. > >>>>> > >>>>> -Mika > >>>>> > >>>> Do you mean all squashed together, into a single patch? > >>> > >>> I would. They are all setting the same register to a nominal value, > >>> for the same purpose. > >> > >> Don't we normally split WA into individual patches or is this only > >> for this WA? > > > > Is it not the same w/a applied to different generations? You either > > split it per device, so that a bisect + revert only affects one > > machine, or not all. Choose your poison. > > yes but the value programmed is different for each device. > > I think as Mika suggested, squashing 1, 2 which covers gen8 and another > patch for gen9 is a good split. > > regards > Arun > I kept the introduction of the new w/a function as a separate patch so that the gen8 and gen9 patches are independent. If you squash 1 and 2, then You can't revert just the gen8 changes because this would break the gen9 stuff. > Tim Gore Intel Corporation (UK) Ltd. - Co. Reg. #1134945 - Pipers Way, Swindon SN3 1RJ> > > > -Chris > > _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
