[snip] > Also, on the subject, I would prefer that we stick to the notation > Wa_14028250015. will fix [snip]
> > > GUC_WA_KLV_REMAP_RANGED_TLB_INV > > = 0x900f, > > GUC_WA_KLV_IGNORE_MMIO_READ_SEM_TOKEN_64 > > = 0x9010, > > GUC_WA_KLV_IGNORE_MULTIQ_CTX_COMPLETE_WITH_PREEMPT_IN_CSB > > = 0x9011, > > + GUC_WA_KLV_ENABLE_PAGE_RECLAIM_ERROR_COMPLETION > > = 0x9012, > > Probably better to use the same name as defined by GuC here? if u mean the internal spec - sure i can do that but i didnt realize that is the convention here. [snip] > > + /* On GuC 70.78 onwards, we enable GuC PRL-completion-IRQ workaround on > > applicable GMIDs */ > > + if (XE_GT_WA(gt, 14028250015) && GUC_FIRMWARE_VER_AT_LEAST(>->uc.guc, > > 70, 78) && > > + gt_to_xe(gt)->info.has_page_reclaim_hw_assist) > > Should we really gate this by the has_page_reclaim_hw_assist feature > flag? This flag can be changed at runtime via debugfs. I would assume > that GuC would do the right thing if PRL is not supported on the IP it > is running. yeah - like your idea better - will just always do it. [snip]
