[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 26/38] drm/i915: Pass around the intel_context

[Chris Wilson]

Quoting Chris Wilson (2019-03-05 16:33:21)
> Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2019-03-05 16:16:01)
> > 
> > On 01/03/2019 14:03, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > > Instead of passing the gem_context and engine to find the instance of
> > > the intel_context to use, pass around the intel_context instead. This is
> > > useful for the next few patches, where the intel_context is no longer a
> > > direct lookup.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk>
> > > ---
> > > @@ -1314,9 +1314,10 @@ __execlists_update_reg_state(struct intel_engine_cs *engine,
> > >       regs[CTX_RING_TAIL + 1] = ring->tail;
> > >   
> > >       /* RPCS */
> > > -     if (engine->class == RENDER_CLASS)
> > > -             regs[CTX_R_PWR_CLK_STATE + 1] = gen8_make_rpcs(engine->i915,
> > > -                                                            &ce->sseu);
> > > +     if (engine->class == RENDER_CLASS) {
> > > +             regs[CTX_R_PWR_CLK_STATE + 1] =
> > > +                     gen8_make_rpcs(engine->i915, &ce->sseu);
> > > +     }
> > 
> > Rebasing artifact I guess.
> 
> I must have slipped :-p
> 
> > > @@ -2659,7 +2660,7 @@ static u32 intel_lr_indirect_ctx_offset(struct intel_engine_cs *engine)
> > >   }
> > >   
> > >   static void execlists_init_reg_state(u32 *regs,
> > > -                                  struct i915_gem_context *ctx,
> > > +                                  struct intel_context *ce,
> > >                                    struct intel_engine_cs *engine,
> > 
> > I can't remember if separate engine param is needed since now there's 
> > ce->engine. Maybe it comes useful later.
> 
> We could even initialise ce->ring, or just pull that
> ce->gem_context->ring_size.
> 
> I didn't have a good reason to keep engine, nor a good enough reason to
> kill it -- although having ce is enough of a change I guess.

Ah, yes there was. It's for virtual engine.
-Chris