[Intel-gfx] [PATCH v8 6/9] drm/i915/gt: Refactor intel_emit_pipe_control_cs() in a single function

[Nirmoy Das]

Hi Andi

On 7/24/2023 11:16 AM, Andi Shyti wrote:
> Hi Nirmoy,
>
>>       static int mtl_dummy_pipe_control(struct i915_request *rq)
>>       {
>>              /* Wa_14016712196 */
>>              if (IS_MTL_GRAPHICS_STEP(rq->engine->i915, M, STEP_A0, STEP_B0) ||
>>      -           IS_MTL_GRAPHICS_STEP(rq->engine->i915, P, STEP_A0, STEP_B0)) {
>>      -               u32 *cs;
>>      -
>>      -               /* dummy PIPE_CONTROL + depth flush */
>>      -               cs = intel_ring_begin(rq, 6);
>>      -               if (IS_ERR(cs))
>>      -                       return PTR_ERR(cs);
>>      -               cs = gen12_emit_pipe_control(cs,
>>      -                                            0,
>>      -                                            PIPE_CONTROL_DEPTH_CACHE_FLUSH,
>>      -                                            LRC_PPHWSP_SCRATCH_ADDR);
>>      -               intel_ring_advance(rq, cs);
>>      -       }
>>      +           IS_MTL_GRAPHICS_STEP(rq->engine->i915, P, STEP_A0, STEP_B0))
>>      +               return gen12_emit_pipe_control_cs(rq, 0,
>>      +                                       PIPE_CONTROL_DEPTH_CACHE_FLUSH,
>>      +                                       LRC_PPHWSP_SCRATCH_ADDR);
>>
>> Don't think this will get backported to 5.8+. I think mtl introduced after
>> that.
>>
>> If that is not an issue for rest of the series and then
> to be honest I don't think I fully understood the stable
> policies, as in this series only two are the patches that are
> really fixing things and the rest are only support.
>
> In this case I think this will produce a conflict that will be
> eventually fixed (... I guess!).


As far as I know, it is developer responsibility to port the patch to 
stable version if there is conflict.

Regards,

Nirmoy

>
>> Reviewed-by: Nirmoy Das <nirmoy.das at intel.com>
> Thanks,
> Andi