[Mesa-dev] [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/1] drm/i915: Version the MOCS settings

[Emil Velikov]

On 7 July 2017 at 11:34, Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk> wrote:
> Quoting Ben Widawsky (2017-07-07 00:27:01)
>>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c |  3 +++
>>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h |  2 ++
>>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_pci.c | 13 +++++++++----
>>  include/uapi/drm/i915_drm.h     |  8 ++++++++
>>  4 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c
>> index 9167a73f3c69..26c27b6ae814 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c
>> @@ -401,6 +401,9 @@ static int i915_getparam(struct drm_device *dev, void *data,
>>                 if (!value)
>>                         return -ENODEV;
>>                 break;
>> +       case I915_PARAM_MOCS_TABLE_VERSION:
>> +               value = INTEL_INFO(dev_priv)->mocs_version;
>
> If we use intel_mocs_get_table_version() we can put this magic number
> in intel_mocs.c next to the tables, where we can keep its history and
> hopefully be able to remember to update it.
>
>> +/* What version of the MOCS table we have. For GEN9 GPUs, the PRM defined
>> + * non-optimal settings for the MOCS table. As a result, we were required to use a
>> + * small subset, and later add new settings. This param allows userspace to
>> + * determine which settings are there.
>> + */
>> +#define MOCS_TABLE_VERSION               1 /* Build time MOCS table version */
>
> How are you planing to share this? When we update we bump this number,
> and then mesa copies it across and uses it after verifying it as 0,1 on
> an old kernel.
>
> I don't think you want to expose the updated constant here, but symbolic
> names for each version? (What would be the point?)
>
FWIW I have to agree with Chris here - having the value is of limited
use. Furthermore it mostly confuses people when writing the user space
parts.

For example:
Mesa implements v1 and uses the define. Kernel headers get updated to
v2 and Mesa supporting v1 gets rebuild against them.
Mesa stores/treats as the MOCS version has "v2" when the actual
hardware/kernel supports "v1".

The expected issues vary depending on the implementation, but I
suspect it won't be fun :-)

IMHO it's better if user space is explicit on the versions it supports
and kernel should avoid exposing such defines unless really needed.

HTH
Emil