On Tue, Mar 21, 2023 at 3:54 PM Alex Deucher <alexdeuc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 8:31 PM Marek Olšák <mar...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 1:38 PM Alex Deucher <alexander.deuc...@amd.com> > wrote: > >> > >> Add UAPI to query the GFX shadow buffer requirements > >> for preemption on GFX11. UMDs need to specify the shadow > >> areas for preemption. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deuc...@amd.com> > >> --- > >> include/uapi/drm/amdgpu_drm.h | 10 ++++++++++ > >> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+) > >> > >> diff --git a/include/uapi/drm/amdgpu_drm.h > b/include/uapi/drm/amdgpu_drm.h > >> index 3d9474af6566..19a806145371 100644 > >> --- a/include/uapi/drm/amdgpu_drm.h > >> +++ b/include/uapi/drm/amdgpu_drm.h > >> @@ -886,6 +886,7 @@ struct drm_amdgpu_cs_chunk_cp_gfx_shadow { > >> #define AMDGPU_INFO_VIDEO_CAPS_DECODE 0 > >> /* Subquery id: Encode */ > >> #define AMDGPU_INFO_VIDEO_CAPS_ENCODE 1 > >> +#define AMDGPU_INFO_CP_GFX_SHADOW_SIZE 0x22 > > > > > > Can you put this into the device structure instead? Let's minimize the > number of kernel queries as much as possible. > > I guess, but one nice thing about this is that we can use the query as > a way to determine if the kernel supports this functionality or not. > If not, the query returns -ENOTSUP. > That should be another flag in the device info structure or the sizes should be 0. There is never a reason to add a new single-value INFO query. Marek