[Intel-xe] [PATCH v5 10/20] drm/xe: Remove XE_EXEC_QUEUE_SET_PROPERTY_COMPUTE_MODE from uAPI

[Dixit, Ashutosh]

On Fri, 06 Oct 2023 02:59:33 -0700, Francois Dugast wrote:
>

Hi Francois,

> diff --git a/include/uapi/drm/xe_drm.h b/include/uapi/drm/xe_drm.h
> index ad21ba1d6e0b..2a9e04024723 100644
> --- a/include/uapi/drm/xe_drm.h
> +++ b/include/uapi/drm/xe_drm.h
> @@ -781,21 +781,14 @@ struct drm_xe_exec_queue_set_property {
>	/** @exec_queue_id: Exec queue ID */
>	__u32 exec_queue_id;
>
> -#define XE_EXEC_QUEUE_SET_PROPERTY_PRIORITY			0
> +#define XE_EXEC_QUEUE_SET_PROPERTY_PRIORITY		0
>  #define XE_EXEC_QUEUE_SET_PROPERTY_TIMESLICE		1
>  #define XE_EXEC_QUEUE_SET_PROPERTY_PREEMPTION_TIMEOUT	2
> -	/*
> -	 * Long running or ULLS engine mode. DMA fences not allowed in this
> -	 * mode. Must match the value of DRM_XE_VM_CREATE_COMPUTE_MODE, serves
> -	 * as a sanity check the UMD knows what it is doing. Can only be set at
> -	 * engine create time.
> -	 */
> -#define XE_EXEC_QUEUE_SET_PROPERTY_COMPUTE_MODE		3
> -#define XE_EXEC_QUEUE_SET_PROPERTY_PERSISTENCE		4
> -#define XE_EXEC_QUEUE_SET_PROPERTY_JOB_TIMEOUT		5
> -#define XE_EXEC_QUEUE_SET_PROPERTY_ACC_TRIGGER		6
> -#define XE_EXEC_QUEUE_SET_PROPERTY_ACC_NOTIFY		7
> -#define XE_EXEC_QUEUE_SET_PROPERTY_ACC_GRANULARITY		8
> +#define XE_EXEC_QUEUE_SET_PROPERTY_PERSISTENCE		3
> +#define XE_EXEC_QUEUE_SET_PROPERTY_JOB_TIMEOUT		4
> +#define XE_EXEC_QUEUE_SET_PROPERTY_ACC_TRIGGER		5
> +#define XE_EXEC_QUEUE_SET_PROPERTY_ACC_NOTIFY		6
> +#define XE_EXEC_QUEUE_SET_PROPERTY_ACC_GRANULARITY	7
>	/** @property: property to set */
>	__u32 property;
>
>	/** @value: property value */
>	__u64 value;

Mostly a nit, but I had a question about this because I am facing a similar
decision elsewhere. Why do we have one property/value pair in this struct
when all the rest of the property/value pairs are coming in via the
extensions? Basically, how about removing this property/value pair from
thus struct and let all the property/value pairs come in only via
extensions? I think that would both simplify the code a bit and be more
consistent. Thoughts?

Thanks.
--
Ashutosh