From: Ben Widawsky
For the most part, logical rinf context objects are similar to hardware
contexts in that the backing object is meant to be opaque. There are
some exceptions where we need to poke certain offsets of the object for
initialization, updating the tail pointer or updating the PDPs.
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 05:59:48PM +, oscar.ma...@intel.com wrote:
> + if (ring->id == RCS)
> + reg_state[CTX_LRI_HEADER_0] = MI_LOAD_REGISTER_IMM(14);
> + else
> + reg_state[CTX_LRI_HEADER_0] = MI_LOAD_REGISTER_IMM(11);
In the "Register State Context", this hea
gfx@lists.freedesktop.org; Ben Widawsky; Widawsky, Benjamin
> Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 19/49] drm/i915/bdw: Populate LR contexts
> (somewhat)
>
> On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 05:59:48PM +, oscar.ma...@intel.com wrote:
> > + if (ring->id == RCS)
> > + reg
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 05:59:48PM +, oscar.ma...@intel.com wrote:
> From: Ben Widawsky
>
> For the most part, logical rinf context objects are similar to hardware
> contexts in that the backing object is meant to be opaque. There are
> some exceptions where we need to poke certain offsets of
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 11:00:33AM -0500, Jeff McGee wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 05:59:48PM +, oscar.ma...@intel.com wrote:
> > From: Ben Widawsky
> >
> > For the most part, logical rinf context objects are similar to hardware
> > contexts in that the backing object is meant to be opaque
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 11:10:34AM -0500, Jeff McGee wrote:
> Oh, nevermind. I understand now.
Quickly explaining your understanding for everyone else's benefit would be
nice ... In general be explicit and verbose on mailing lists to make sure
you don't miss some important bit of context people fr
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 11:10:34AM -0500, Jeff McGee wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 11:00:33AM -0500, Jeff McGee wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 05:59:48PM +, oscar.ma...@intel.com wrote:
> > > From: Ben Widawsky
> > >
> > > For the most part, logical rinf context objects are similar to
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 03:43:23PM -0500, Jeff McGee wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 11:10:34AM -0500, Jeff McGee wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 11:00:33AM -0500, Jeff McGee wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 05:59:48PM +, oscar.ma...@intel.com wrote:
> > > > From: Ben Widawsky
> > > >
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 11:08:02PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 03:43:23PM -0500, Jeff McGee wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 11:10:34AM -0500, Jeff McGee wrote:
> > > On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 11:00:33AM -0500, Jeff McGee wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 05:59:48PM +
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 12:32 AM, Jeff McGee wrote:
>> > Reflecting on my initial confusion, would it be clearer to provide names
>> > for
>> > each dword position in the context image, rather than using an unnamed
>> > offset
>> > like CTX_R_PWR_CLK_STATE+1? Example:
>> >
>> > reg_state[CTX_R_P
10 matches
Mail list logo
