[Intel-gfx] [PATCH i-g-t] i915: Improve static engine map for legacy

[Chris Wilson]

Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2019-05-23 09:46:08)
> 
> On 23/05/2019 09:06, Chris Wilson wrote:
> >   const struct intel_execution_engine2 intel_execution_engines2[] = {
> > -     { "rcs0", I915_ENGINE_CLASS_RENDER, 0 },
> > -     { "bcs0", I915_ENGINE_CLASS_COPY, 0 },
> > -     { "vcs0", I915_ENGINE_CLASS_VIDEO, 0 },
> > -     { "vcs1", I915_ENGINE_CLASS_VIDEO, 1 },
> > -     { "vcs2", I915_ENGINE_CLASS_VIDEO, 2 },
> > -     { "vecs0", I915_ENGINE_CLASS_VIDEO_ENHANCE, 0 },
> > +     { "rcs0", I915_ENGINE_CLASS_RENDER, 0, I915_EXEC_RENDER },
> > +     { "bcs0", I915_ENGINE_CLASS_COPY, 0, I915_EXEC_BLT },
> > +     { "vcs0", I915_ENGINE_CLASS_VIDEO, 0, I915_EXEC_BSD | I915_EXEC_BSD_RING1 },
> 
> execbuf will reject this on single vcs parts. :( Am I not seeing some 
> place where you fudge it into compliance?


        if (user_ring_id == I915_EXEC_BSD && HAS_ENGINE(dev_priv, VCS1)) {
                unsigned int bsd_idx = args->flags & I915_EXEC_BSD_MASK;

                if (bsd_idx == I915_EXEC_BSD_DEFAULT) {
                        bsd_idx = gen8_dispatch_bsd_engine(dev_priv, file);
                } else if (bsd_idx >= I915_EXEC_BSD_RING1 &&
                           bsd_idx <= I915_EXEC_BSD_RING2) {
                        bsd_idx >>= I915_EXEC_BSD_SHIFT;
                        bsd_idx--;
                } else {
                        DRM_DEBUG("execbuf with unknown bsd ring: %u\n",
                                  bsd_idx);
                        return NULL;
                }

                engine = dev_priv->engine[_VCS(bsd_idx)];
        } else {
                engine = dev_priv->engine[user_ring_map[user_ring_id]];
        }

Looks ok to me... I was trying to double check but dif didn't boot on
bsw. Sigh.
-Chris