[Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: Add relocation exceptions for two other platforms

[Daniel Vetter]

On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 9:19 AM Dave Airlie <airlied at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 27 May 2021 at 20:04, Daniel Vetter <daniel at ffwll.ch> wrote:
> > On Wed, May 26, 2021 at 10:35:49AM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
> > > On Wed, 12 May 2021 at 03:05, Daniel Vetter <daniel at ffwll.ch> wrote:
> > > > On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 10:31:39AM +0200, Zbigniew Kempczyński wrote:
> > > > > We have established previously we stop using relocations starting
> > > > > from gen12 platforms with Tigerlake as an exception. Unfortunately
> > > > > we need extend transition period and support relocations for two
> > > > > other igfx platforms - Rocketlake and Alderlake.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Zbigniew Kempczyński <zbigniew.kempczynski at intel.com>
> > > > > Cc: Dave Airlie <airlied at redhat.com>
> > > > > Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter at intel.com>
> > > > > Cc: Jason Ekstrand <jason at jlekstrand.net>
> > > >
> > > > So the annoying thing here is that now media-driver is fixed:
> > > >
> > > > https://github.com/intel/media-driver/commit/144020c37770083974bedf59902b70b8f444c799
> > > >
> > > > Which means igt is really the only thing left.
> > > >
> > > > Dave, is this still ok for an acked exception, or is this now leaning
> > > > towards "just fix igt"?
> > >
> > > Oh that isn't great is it, I had thought it was the media-driver,
> > > keeping a big uAPI like this open just for the test code seems a bit
> > > silly. I get the tests are testing more than just relocs, but it's a
> > > pretty big interface to leave lying around if we can avoid it.
> >
> > So since we need to do the work anyway for DG1+ what about some interim
> > hack? Currently ADL still has the require_force_probe flag set. We could
> > re-enable relocations just for ADL, only while this flag is set. This
> > gives us a bunch of wiggle room, unblocks everything else (CI is a bit on
> > fire right now due to this and practially unuseable on ADL gem areay) and
> > we'll still make sure that when ADL is all done we wont expose relocations
> > just for igt.
> >
> > Thoughts?
>
> I can handle that as a compromise, though I'd not want to block ADL
> getting out of alpha over some IGT that needs porting.

Uh given that EHL/JSL are still in require_force_probe = true mode
because of a random igt (and shipping since a while) ... I guess worst
case if it's not sorted in a few months latest we can undo that again.
-Daniel
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch