Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2] drm/i915: Move the scheduler feature bits into the purview of the engines

So the functional purpose of this patch is to provide capabilities (including preemption status) within error information. I agree this is required. On 2018-02-01 20:02, Chris Wilson wrote: Rather than having the high level ioctl interface guess the underlying implementation details, having

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2] drm/i915: Move the scheduler feature bits into the purview of the engines

Chris Wilson writes: > Rather than having the high level ioctl interface guess the underlying > implementation details, having the implementation declare what > capabilities it exports. We define an intel_driver_caps, similar to the > intel_device_info, which instead of

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2] drm/i915: Move the scheduler feature bits into the purview of the engines

Rather than having the high level ioctl interface guess the underlying implementation details, having the implementation declare what capabilities it exports. We define an intel_driver_caps, similar to the intel_device_info, which instead of trying to describe the HW gives details on what the