On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 09:38:33AM -0700, Matthew Brost wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at 05:27:48PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 09, 2021 at 04:10:23PM -0700, Matthew Brost wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jun 08, 2021 at 10:46:15AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jun 8, 2021 at
On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at 05:27:48PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 09, 2021 at 04:10:23PM -0700, Matthew Brost wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 08, 2021 at 10:46:15AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jun 8, 2021 at 10:39 AM Tvrtko Ursulin
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On
On Wed, Jun 09, 2021 at 04:10:23PM -0700, Matthew Brost wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 08, 2021 at 10:46:15AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 8, 2021 at 10:39 AM Tvrtko Ursulin
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On 07/06/2021 18:31, Matthew Brost wrote:
> > > > On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 04:11:50PM
On Wed, Jun 09, 2021 at 04:14:05PM +0200, Michal Wajdeczko wrote:
>
>
> On 07.06.2021 19:31, Matthew Brost wrote:
> > On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 04:11:50PM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> >>
> >> On 27/05/2021 15:35, Matthew Brost wrote:
> >>> On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 11:02:24AM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin
On Tue, Jun 08, 2021 at 10:46:15AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 8, 2021 at 10:39 AM Tvrtko Ursulin
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 07/06/2021 18:31, Matthew Brost wrote:
> > > On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 04:11:50PM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On 27/05/2021 15:35, Matthew Brost
On Wed, Jun 09, 2021 at 03:58:38PM +0200, Michal Wajdeczko wrote:
>
>
> On 08.06.2021 10:39, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> >
> > On 07/06/2021 18:31, Matthew Brost wrote:
> >> On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 04:11:50PM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 27/05/2021 15:35, Matthew Brost wrote:
>
On 07.06.2021 19:31, Matthew Brost wrote:
> On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 04:11:50PM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>>
>> On 27/05/2021 15:35, Matthew Brost wrote:
>>> On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 11:02:24AM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 26/05/2021 19:10, Matthew Brost wrote:
[snip]
On 08.06.2021 10:39, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>
> On 07/06/2021 18:31, Matthew Brost wrote:
>> On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 04:11:50PM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>>>
>>> On 27/05/2021 15:35, Matthew Brost wrote:
On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 11:02:24AM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>
> On
On Tue, Jun 8, 2021 at 10:39 AM Tvrtko Ursulin
wrote:
>
>
> On 07/06/2021 18:31, Matthew Brost wrote:
> > On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 04:11:50PM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> >>
> >> On 27/05/2021 15:35, Matthew Brost wrote:
> >>> On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 11:02:24AM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>
On 07/06/2021 18:31, Matthew Brost wrote:
On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 04:11:50PM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 27/05/2021 15:35, Matthew Brost wrote:
On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 11:02:24AM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 26/05/2021 19:10, Matthew Brost wrote:
[snip]
+static int
On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 04:11:50PM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>
> On 27/05/2021 15:35, Matthew Brost wrote:
> > On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 11:02:24AM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> > >
> > > On 26/05/2021 19:10, Matthew Brost wrote:
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > > > > > > +static int
On 27/05/2021 15:35, Matthew Brost wrote:
On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 11:02:24AM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 26/05/2021 19:10, Matthew Brost wrote:
[snip]
+static int ct_send_nb(struct intel_guc_ct *ct,
+ const u32 *action,
+ u32 len,
+
On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 11:02:24AM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>
> On 26/05/2021 19:10, Matthew Brost wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > > > > > +static int ct_send_nb(struct intel_guc_ct *ct,
> > > > > > + const u32 *action,
> > > > > > + u32 len,
> > > > > > +
On 26/05/2021 19:10, Matthew Brost wrote:
[snip]
+static int ct_send_nb(struct intel_guc_ct *ct,
+ const u32 *action,
+ u32 len,
+ u32 flags)
+{
+ struct intel_guc_ct_buffer *ctb = >ctbs.send;
+ unsigned long spin_flags;
On Wed, May 26, 2021 at 09:57:10AM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>
> On 25/05/2021 18:21, Matthew Brost wrote:
> > On Tue, May 25, 2021 at 10:21:00AM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> > >
> > > On 06/05/2021 20:13, Matthew Brost wrote:
> > > > Add non blocking CTB send function, intel_guc_send_nb.
On 25/05/2021 18:21, Matthew Brost wrote:
On Tue, May 25, 2021 at 10:21:00AM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 06/05/2021 20:13, Matthew Brost wrote:
Add non blocking CTB send function, intel_guc_send_nb. In order to
support a non blocking CTB send function a spin lock is needed to
protect the
On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 02:21:42PM +0200, Michal Wajdeczko wrote:
>
>
> On 06.05.2021 21:13, Matthew Brost wrote:
> > Add non blocking CTB send function, intel_guc_send_nb. In order to
> > support a non blocking CTB send function a spin lock is needed to
>
> spin lock was added in 16/97
>
> >
On Tue, May 25, 2021 at 10:21:00AM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>
> On 06/05/2021 20:13, Matthew Brost wrote:
> > Add non blocking CTB send function, intel_guc_send_nb. In order to
> > support a non blocking CTB send function a spin lock is needed to
> > protect the CTB descriptors fields. Also
On 06/05/2021 20:13, Matthew Brost wrote:
Add non blocking CTB send function, intel_guc_send_nb. In order to
support a non blocking CTB send function a spin lock is needed to
protect the CTB descriptors fields. Also the non blocking call must not
update the fence value as this value is owned by
On 06.05.2021 21:13, Matthew Brost wrote:
> Add non blocking CTB send function, intel_guc_send_nb. In order to
> support a non blocking CTB send function a spin lock is needed to
spin lock was added in 16/97
> protect the CTB descriptors fields. Also the non blocking call must not
> update the
Add non blocking CTB send function, intel_guc_send_nb. In order to
support a non blocking CTB send function a spin lock is needed to
protect the CTB descriptors fields. Also the non blocking call must not
update the fence value as this value is owned by the blocking call
(intel_guc_send).
The
21 matches
Mail list logo
