[Intel-gfx] [PATCH v4] drm/i915: Remove i915.enable_ppgtt override

[Joonas Lahtinen]

Quoting Joonas Lahtinen (2018-09-25 16:27:47)
> Quoting Chris Wilson (2018-09-25 14:48:20)
> > Now that we are confident in providing full-ppgtt where supported,
> > remove the ability to override the context isolation.
> > 
> > v2: Remove faked aliasing-ppgtt for testing as it no longer is accepted.
> > v3: s/USES/HAS/ to match usage and reject attempts to load the module on
> > old GVT-g setups that do not provide support for full-ppgtt.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk>
> > Cc: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen at linux.intel.com>
> > Cc: Matthew Auld <matthew.auld at intel.com>
> 
> <SNIP>
> 
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c
> > @@ -345,7 +345,7 @@ static int i915_getparam_ioctl(struct drm_device *dev, void *data,
> >                 value = HAS_WT(dev_priv);
> >                 break;
> >         case I915_PARAM_HAS_ALIASING_PPGTT:
> > -               value = USES_PPGTT(dev_priv);
> > +               value = INTEL_PPGTT(dev_priv);
> >                 break;
> 
> Luckily nobody has decided to renumber the modparam values for the sake
> of our uAPI :P

With the uAPI header addition + translation (just highlight in the commit
message that we're just spelling out an existing uAPI), this is;

Reviewed-by: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen at linux.intel.com>

Regards, Joonas

> 
> Maybe best to have the values in uapi header and then add a translation
> here to avoid such a problem in the future. I'd prefer to limit to just
> relying the information of 0 (none), 1 (aliasing) or 2 (full) unless
> somebody has slipped in code to userspace that relies on detecting the
> 48-bits from here instead the right place...
> 
> Regards, Joonas