<!DOCTYPE html><html><head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 4/18/2024 10:30, Lucas De Marchi
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:gmzgyv6tjktchnp77xtux4qoa63v4rckevz2y65dirkxa7tjmi@yb475d2qbaxp">On
Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 10:20:35AM GMT, Chauhan, Shekhar wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<br>
On 4/18/2024 04:05, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 06:45:47PM GMT,
Gustavo Sousa wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Quoting Gustavo Sousa (2024-04-17
18:25:01-03:00)
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Wa_14020338487 also applies to
Xe2_LPG. Replicate the existing entry to
<br>
one specific for Xe2_LPG.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
I would also like to take this as an opportunity to discuss
the way we
<br>
are currently arranging the RTP entries for the workaround.
Using this
<br>
one as example, created a copy of the entry and edited the
argument of
<br>
GRAPHICS_VERSION() to match Xe2_LPG. There are multiple
cases already
<br>
following the same pattern, mainly because we are grouping
entries by
<br>
IP release.
<br>
<br>
Do we want to continue following that pattern and keep the
code
<br>
duplication? Or should we think of a way to avoid code
duplication here?
<br>
<br>
A very simple approach that I think of is having a single
entry for each
<br>
lineage. But I guess that's not really feasible today
because I guess we
<br>
do not have a way of expressing logical disjunction in
XE_RTP_RULES().
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
yes, implementing it was always something I considered, but
then there
<br>
was also the fact that when we have WAs that are on IPs that
are not
<br>
close to each other we may have subtle differences like
registers with
<br>
different offset or mcr vs non-mcr.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
I see that some registers vary between MCR and non-MCR types.
However, could you please explain how this difference affects
implementation? As I understand it, when setting XE_RTP_ACTIONS,
we simply choose the desired action (SET, CLR etc). So, I'm
curious about the specific impact of MCR vs non-MCR in this
context.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
you need to pick the right register that has the mcr reg option
set.
<br>
Exammple:
<br>
<br>
{ XE_RTP_NAME("22016670082"),
<br>
XE_RTP_RULES(GRAPHICS_VERSION_RANGE(1270, 1274)),
<br>
XE_RTP_ACTIONS(SET(SQCNT1, ENFORCE_RAR))
<br>
},
<br>
<br>
vs
<br>
<br>
{ XE_RTP_NAME("22016670082"),
<br>
XE_RTP_RULES(MEDIA_VERSION(1300)),
<br>
XE_RTP_ACTIONS(SET(XELPMP_SQCNT1, ENFORCE_RAR))
<br>
},
<br>
<br>
#define SQCNT1
XE_REG_MCR(0x8718)
<br>
#define XELPMP_SQCNT1 XE_REG(0x8718)
<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<p><font face="Courier New, Courier, monospace">Understood. Thanks.</font></p>
<p><font face="Courier New, Courier, monospace"><i>shekhar<br>
</i></font> </p>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:gmzgyv6tjktchnp77xtux4qoa63v4rckevz2y65dirkxa7tjmi@yb475d2qbaxp">
<br>
Lucas De Marchi
<br>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
-shekhar
</pre>
</body>
</html>