On Fri, 31 Jan 2020 17:40:12 +0100, Matthew Brost
wrote:
On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 03:33:55PM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
Quoting Michal Wajdeczko (2020-01-31 14:58:34)
While we are always using CT "send" buffer to send request messages
to GuC, we usually don't ask GuC to use CT "receive" buff
On Fri, 31 Jan 2020 16:33:55 +0100, Chris Wilson
wrote:
Quoting Michal Wajdeczko (2020-01-31 14:58:34)
While we are always using CT "send" buffer to send request messages
to GuC, we usually don't ask GuC to use CT "receive" buffer to send
back response messages, since almost all returned dat
On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 03:33:55PM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
Quoting Michal Wajdeczko (2020-01-31 14:58:34)
While we are always using CT "send" buffer to send request messages
to GuC, we usually don't ask GuC to use CT "receive" buffer to send
back response messages, since almost all returned d
Quoting Michal Wajdeczko (2020-01-31 14:58:34)
> While we are always using CT "send" buffer to send request messages
> to GuC, we usually don't ask GuC to use CT "receive" buffer to send
> back response messages, since almost all returned data can fit into
> reserved bits in status dword inside CT
While we are always using CT "send" buffer to send request messages
to GuC, we usually don't ask GuC to use CT "receive" buffer to send
back response messages, since almost all returned data can fit into
reserved bits in status dword inside CT descriptor. However, relying
on data modifications insi
