[PATCH v2] drm/xe/uapi: Expose SIMD16 EU mask in topology query

[Lucas De Marchi]

On Tue, Jul 16, 2024 at 06:39:26PM GMT, Jose Souza wrote:
>> humn... if we decide to set both for backward compatibility, why not
>> rather go with v1 of the patch?  v1 of the patch documents that the EU
>> reported in EU_PER_DSS is of type X. Having both masks here doesn't
>> answer that question and requires that we always convert back to the
>> simd8 number (and eventually to the simd16 number) for newer platforms.
>>
>> so suppose 5 years from now we have simd123 (using arbitrary/absurd name
>> on purpose to avoid people jumping to conclusions):  would we keep
>> exposing the simd8, simd16, simdX, fooY numbers for the sake of
>> backward compatibility with previous HW?  On the other hand, the
>> alternative means: if userspace X really supports platform Y, it has to
>> know about that type of EU if it's using that mask for anything.
>>
>> So my preference would be, in order:
>>
>> 1) v2
>> 2) v1
>> 3) v2-with-forever-bc-between-platforms
>>
>> Both (2) and (3) have the silent misbehavior in userspace if userspace
>> didn't adapt to new UAPI.
>
>option 1) v2 is better in my opinion.


great. I fixed a typo in the kernel-doc, added a few more
Acked-by's received offline and pushed to drm-xe-next.

[1/1] drm/xe/uapi: Expose SIMD16 EU mask in topology query
       commit: 7108b4a589cd6d3a2c1276fd610b3500f46de66a

Thanks everyone,

Lucas De Marchi