On Fri, Jun 04, 2021 at 11:35:39AM -0700, Matthew Brost wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 04, 2021 at 10:33:07AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 02, 2021 at 10:16:23PM -0700, Matthew Brost wrote:
> > > From: Michal Wajdeczko
> > >
> > > In upcoming patch we will allow more CTB requests to be sent
On Fri, Jun 04, 2021 at 10:33:07AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 02, 2021 at 10:16:23PM -0700, Matthew Brost wrote:
> > From: Michal Wajdeczko
> >
> > In upcoming patch we will allow more CTB requests to be sent in
> > parallel to the GuC for processing, so we shouldn't assume any mor
On Wed, Jun 02, 2021 at 10:16:23PM -0700, Matthew Brost wrote:
> From: Michal Wajdeczko
>
> In upcoming patch we will allow more CTB requests to be sent in
> parallel to the GuC for processing, so we shouldn't assume any more
> that GuC will always reply without 10ms.
>
> Use bigger value from C
From: Michal Wajdeczko
In upcoming patch we will allow more CTB requests to be sent in
parallel to the GuC for processing, so we shouldn't assume any more
that GuC will always reply without 10ms.
Use bigger value from CONFIG_DRM_I915_GUC_CTB_TIMEOUT instead.
v2: Add CONFIG_DRM_I915_GUC_CTB_TIME
