<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 24/05/18 11:43, Tvrtko Ursulin
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:034d6f31-cc3e-59c8-a759-a099dd001f56@linux.intel.com"><br>
<blockquote type="cite" style="color: #000000;">
<br>
<blockquote type="cite" style="color: #000000;">
<br>
<blockquote type="cite" style="color: #000000;">+
<br>
+ /*
<br>
+ * Mask of slices to enable for the context. Valid
values are a subset
<br>
+ * of the bitmask value returned for
I915_PARAM_SLICE_MASK.
<br>
+ */
<br>
+ __u8 slice_mask;
<br>
+
<br>
+ /*
<br>
+ * Mask of subslices to enable for the context. Valid
values are a
<br>
+ * subset of the bitmask value return by
I915_PARAM_SUBSLICE_MASK.
<br>
+ */
<br>
+ __u8 subslice_mask;
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Is this future proof enough, say for Gen11?
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
As far as I can see, this fits.
<br>
No objection to bump it to 16/32bits if you'd like.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Feel like I've asked you this before, sorry - nothing in the
future will need per slice subslice mask?
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
As far as I can see this remains the same uniform subslice per slice
programming style.<br>
We could play it safe and put all the masks in 64bits in the uAPI.<br>
<br>
What do you think?<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:034d6f31-cc3e-59c8-a759-a099dd001f56@linux.intel.com">
<br>
Regards,
<br>
<br>
Tvrtko
<br>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>