From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ben Widawsky <ben@bwidawsk.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: small semaphore fix
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2011 14:18:04 +0000
Message-ID: <20110902141804.GA30970@cloud01>
References: <1314820042-6169-1-git-send-email-ben@bwidawsk.net>
	<87wrdsb0o4.fsf@eliezer.anholt.net>
	<20110901195111.0b338102@bwidawsk.net>
	<e0d58a$1abvhj@orsmga002.jf.intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org>
Received: from cloud01.chad-versace.us (184-106-247-128.static.cloud-ips.com
	[184.106.247.128])
	by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE0BCA15CC
	for <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>;
	Fri,  2 Sep 2011 07:14:54 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <e0d58a$1abvhj@orsmga002.jf.intel.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/options/intel-gfx>,
	<mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/intel-gfx>
List-Post: <mailto:intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>
List-Help: <mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx>,
	<mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org
Errors-To: intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org
To: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org

On Fri, Sep 02, 2011 at 09:56:31AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Sep 2011 19:51:11 -0700, Ben Widawsky <ben@bwidawsk.net> wrote:
> > On Thu, 01 Sep 2011 11:03:07 -0700
> > Eric Anholt <eric@anholt.net> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Wed, 31 Aug 2011 12:47:22 -0700, Ben Widawsky <ben@bwidawsk.net>
> > > wrote:
> > > > Assertion + unsigned helps catch potential issues.
> > > > 
> > > > From the docs it is hard to tell if the global GTT flag is actually
> > > > needed, but it shouldn't hurt.
> > > 
> > > We're updating a register, not the GTT, so I don't see why the flag
> > > would be relevant.
> > 
> > The patch is as (ir)relevant as without it which implies PPGTT. The
> > reason it was there is in another branch I was planning to implement
> > memory based semaphores.
> 
> Memory based semaphores required working ppgtt, afaict.
> -Chris

Hmm, nothing in the docs suggested to me that it wouldn't work. I know for sure
it won't work on the simulator. So long as the semaphore commands are being
issued from a secure batch, I don't see why ppgtt *should* be a requirement. I
think the whole point of the gGTT flag is to allow inter-contexct
synchronization without needing to have identical ppgtt mappings.

I was planning to give it a shot today, but based on the simulator I suspect it
won't work.

Ben