[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 4/5] drm/i915: Let number of workarounds more clear

[Rodrigo Vivi]

so please, just ignore this patch anyway.

On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 7:56 AM, Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 05:16:57PM +0300, Mika Kuoppala wrote:
>> Jani Nikula <jani.nikula at linux.intel.com> writes:
>>
>> > On Fri, 26 Sep 2014, Mika Kuoppala <mika.kuoppala at linux.intel.com> wrote:
>> >> Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi at intel.com> writes:
>> >>
>> >>> This helps when including or removing cs workarounds.
>> >>> Signed-off-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi at intel.com>
>> >>> ---
>> >>>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.c | 16 ++++++++++++----
>> >>>  1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>> >>>
>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.c
>> >>> index 7c3d17a..39fbea6 100644
>> >>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.c
>> >>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.c
>> >>> @@ -694,6 +694,7 @@ static int bdw_init_workarounds(struct intel_engine_cs *ring)
>> >>>   int ret;
>> >>>   struct drm_device *dev = ring->dev;
>> >>>   struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = dev->dev_private;
>> >>> + int wa_amount;
>> >>>
>> >>>   /*
>> >>>    * workarounds applied in this fn are part of register state context,
>> >>> @@ -704,10 +705,11 @@ static int bdw_init_workarounds(struct intel_engine_cs *ring)
>> >>>   memset(dev_priv->intel_wa_regs, 0, sizeof(dev_priv->intel_wa_regs));
>> >>>
>> >>>   /*
>> >>> -  * update the number of dwords required based on the
>> >>> -  * actual number of workarounds applied
>> >>> +  * update the number of workarounds when adding or removing was
>> >>> +  * in order the have propper dwords
>> >>>    */
>> >>> - ret = intel_ring_begin(ring, 24);
>> >>> + wa_amount = 8;
>> >>> + ret = intel_ring_begin(ring, 3 * wa_amount);
>> >>>   if (ret)
>> >>>           return ret;
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> I have a bit mixed feelings with this patch as I have tripped
>> >> around here myself recently.
>> >>
>> >> I think we should just drop this patch and use:
>> >> ret = intel_ring_begin(ring, 3 * <amount>) on the subsequent
>> >> patches that modify the amount.
>> >>
>> >> This way the intel_ring_begin will always be the one that
>> >> shows in a diff. And raises alarm if it doesnt. We don't want
>> >> this to be too transparent and looking too easy for the next reader.
>> >> As the reviewer is the only and last line of defense ensuring
>> >> symmetry between intel_ring_begin and amount of emits.
>> >
>> > Considering intel_ring_emit_wa() adds all the needed information to
>> > dev_priv->intel_wa_regs and dev_priv->num_wa_regs anyway, we could
>> > trivially split this into constructing dev_priv->intel_wa_regs first,
>> > and doing intel_ring_begin() and the intel_ring_emit()s next, and not
>> > worry about this again.
>>
>> My RFC series of fixing the workarounds after reset/suspend does this.
>
> And so did mine! :-p
> -Chris
>
> --
> Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre
> _______________________________________________
> Intel-gfx mailing list
> Intel-gfx at lists.freedesktop.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx



-- 
Rodrigo Vivi
Blog: http://blog.vivi.eng.br