Re: IOCTL feature detection (Was: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 8/8] drm/i915: Allow user to set cache at BO creation)

2023-04-26 Thread Jordan Justen
On 2023-04-26 04:52:43, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > Joonas asked me to put my thoughts here: > > - in general the "feature discovery by trying it out" approach is most > robust and hence preferred, but it's also not something that's required > when there's good reasons against it More robust in

Re: IOCTL feature detection (Was: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 8/8] drm/i915: Allow user to set cache at BO creation)

2023-04-26 Thread Ceraolo Spurio, Daniele
On 4/26/2023 9:48 AM, Teres Alexis, Alan Previn wrote: On Wed, 2023-04-26 at 13:52 +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: On Tue, Apr 25, 2023 at 04:41:54PM +0300, Joonas Lahtinen wrote: (+ Faith and Daniel as they have been involved in previous discussions) Quoting Jordan Justen (2023-04-24 20:13:00)

Re: IOCTL feature detection (Was: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 8/8] drm/i915: Allow user to set cache at BO creation)

2023-04-26 Thread Teres Alexis, Alan Previn
On Wed, 2023-04-26 at 13:52 +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Tue, Apr 25, 2023 at 04:41:54PM +0300, Joonas Lahtinen wrote: > > (+ Faith and Daniel as they have been involved in previous discussions) > > Quoting Jordan Justen (2023-04-24 20:13:00) > > > On 2023-04-24 02:08:43, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:

Re: IOCTL feature detection (Was: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 8/8] drm/i915: Allow user to set cache at BO creation)

2023-04-26 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Tue, Apr 25, 2023 at 04:41:54PM +0300, Joonas Lahtinen wrote: > (+ Faith and Daniel as they have been involved in previous discussions) > > Quoting Jordan Justen (2023-04-24 20:13:00) > > On 2023-04-24 02:08:43, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > > > > > > Being able to "list" supported extensions sounds

Re: IOCTL feature detection (Was: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 8/8] drm/i915: Allow user to set cache at BO creation)

2023-04-25 Thread Jordan Justen
On 2023-04-25 06:41:54, Joonas Lahtinen wrote: > (+ Faith and Daniel as they have been involved in previous discussions) > > Quoting Jordan Justen (2023-04-24 20:13:00) > > On 2023-04-24 02:08:43, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > > > > > > Being able to "list" supported extensions sounds like a reasonable

Re: IOCTL feature detection (Was: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 8/8] drm/i915: Allow user to set cache at BO creation)

2023-04-25 Thread Teres Alexis, Alan Previn
On Tue, 2023-04-25 at 16:41 +0300, Joonas Lahtinen wrote: > (+ Faith and Daniel as they have been involved in previous discussions) An orthogonal (but losely related) question: Is PXP the only subsystem that has the unique problem of: Uses a delayed worker to complete all dependencies for init.. b

IOCTL feature detection (Was: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 8/8] drm/i915: Allow user to set cache at BO creation)

2023-04-25 Thread Joonas Lahtinen
(+ Faith and Daniel as they have been involved in previous discussions) Quoting Jordan Justen (2023-04-24 20:13:00) > On 2023-04-24 02:08:43, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > > > > Being able to "list" supported extensions sounds like a reasonable > > principle, albeit a departure from the design directio

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 8/8] drm/i915: Allow user to set cache at BO creation

2023-04-24 Thread Jordan Justen
On 2023-04-24 02:08:43, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > > Being able to "list" supported extensions sounds like a reasonable > principle, albeit a departure from the design direction to date. > Which means there are probably no quick solutions. Also, AFAIU, only > PXP context create is the problematic one

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 8/8] drm/i915: Allow user to set cache at BO creation

2023-04-24 Thread Tvrtko Ursulin
[fixed mailing lists addresses] On 24/04/2023 09:36, Jordan Justen wrote: On 2023-04-23 00:05:06, Yang, Fei wrote: On 2023-04-20 09:11:18, Yang, Fei wrote: On 20/04/2023 12:39, Andi Shyti wrote: Hi Fei, because this is an API change, we need some more information here. First of all you ne

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 8/8] drm/i915: Allow user to set cache at BO creation

2023-04-21 Thread Jordan Justen
On 2023-04-20 09:11:18, Yang, Fei wrote: > > On 20/04/2023 12:39, Andi Shyti wrote: > >> Hi Fei, > >> > >>> To comply with the design that buffer objects shall have immutable > >>> cache setting through out their life cycle, {set, get}_caching ioctl's > >>> are no longer supported from MTL onward.

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 8/8] drm/i915: Allow user to set cache at BO creation

2023-04-20 Thread Andi Shyti
Hi Fei, > >>> To comply with the design that buffer objects shall have immutable > >>> cache setting through out their life cycle, {set, get}_caching ioctl's > >>> are no longer supported from MTL onward. With that change caching > >>> policy can only be set at object creation time. The current co

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 8/8] drm/i915: Allow user to set cache at BO creation

2023-04-20 Thread Yang, Fei
> On 20/04/2023 12:39, Andi Shyti wrote: >> Hi Fei, >> >>> To comply with the design that buffer objects shall have immutable >>> cache setting through out their life cycle, {set, get}_caching ioctl's >>> are no longer supported from MTL onward. With that change caching >>> policy can only be set a

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 8/8] drm/i915: Allow user to set cache at BO creation

2023-04-20 Thread Tvrtko Ursulin
On 20/04/2023 12:39, Andi Shyti wrote: Hi Fei, To comply with the design that buffer objects shall have immutable cache setting through out their life cycle, {set, get}_caching ioctl's are no longer supported from MTL onward. With that change caching policy can only be set at object creation