On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 10:03:01AM -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> Looks like this was introduced in:
> commit d1675198ed1f21aec6e036336e4340c40b726497
> Author: Alex Dai
> Date: Wed Aug 12 15:43:43 2015 +0100
>
> drm/i915: Integrate GuC-based command submission
>
> This
Looks like this was introduced in:
commit d1675198ed1f21aec6e036336e4340c40b726497
Author: Alex Dai
Date: Wed Aug 12 15:43:43 2015 +0100
drm/i915: Integrate GuC-based command submission
This patch assumed LRC contexts and HWS layout, which is incorrect on
platforms
On 14/09/15 10:21, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 03:07:00PM -0700, Yu Dai wrote:
Agree. The LRC prefix is confusing. Thanks for the patch. -Alex
Care to do an official r-b?
Thanks, Daniel
On 09/10/2015 02:58 PM, Jesse Barnes wrote:
That looks like it would, but I think
On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 03:07:00PM -0700, Yu Dai wrote:
> Agree. The LRC prefix is confusing. Thanks for the patch. -Alex
Care to do an official r-b?
Thanks, Daniel
>
> On 09/10/2015 02:58 PM, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> >That looks like it would, but I think it's still confusing to reference LRC
>
Looks like this was introduced in:
commit d1675198ed1f21aec6e036336e4340c40b726497
Author: Alex Dai
Date: Wed Aug 12 15:43:43 2015 +0100
drm/i915: Integrate GuC-based command submission
This patch assumed LRC contexts and HWS layout, which is incorrect on
platforms
That looks like it would, but I think it's still confusing to reference LRC
state when we haven't initialized execlists at all...
Jesse
On 09/10/2015 02:56 PM, Yu Dai wrote:
> Jesse,
>
> Will the patch here fix the issue? It should help other cases where
> LRC_PPHWSP_PN is referenced on
Jesse,
Will the patch here fix the issue? It should help other cases where
LRC_PPHWSP_PN is referenced on non-execlist / guc platforms.
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.h
index 4cc54b3..233a930 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.h
+++
Agree. The LRC prefix is confusing. Thanks for the patch. -Alex
On 09/10/2015 02:58 PM, Jesse Barnes wrote:
That looks like it would, but I think it's still confusing to reference LRC
state when we haven't initialized execlists at all...
Jesse
On 09/10/2015 02:56 PM, Yu Dai wrote:
> Jesse,
>