From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ben Widawsky <ben@bwidawsk.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] drm/i915: l3 parity sysfs interface
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 18:39:24 -0700
Message-ID: <20120413183924.3dbc8304@bwidawsk.net>
References: <1334358314-9743-1-git-send-email-ben@bwidawsk.net>
	<1334358314-9743-3-git-send-email-ben@bwidawsk.net>
	<1334359471_417726@CP5-2952>
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 37F509E8FB
	for <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>;
	Fri, 13 Apr 2012 18:42:01 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <1334359471_417726@CP5-2952>
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, Ben Widawsky <benjamin.widawsky@intel.com>
List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org

On Sat, 14 Apr 2012 00:24:03 +0100
Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> wrote:

> On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 16:05:14 -0700, Ben Widawsky <ben@bwidawsk.net>
> wrote:
> > Dumb binary interfaces which allow root-only updates of our cache
> > remapping registers.  See intel-gpu-tools for how this can/should be
> > used.
> 
> Initial comments: don't bother posting a read just before a read, and
> do return errors from the sysfs read/write functions (the return
> value is signed for that purpose). A lesser issue is that if you are
> worried about necessity of posting-reads, you should also worry about
> the effect of the weak ordering of writes.
> -Chris
> 

Thanks for the advice on the sysfs return values. Some of the code I
was referring from just returns 0, but this seems to be not the right
thing to do after looking further into it.

As for the POSTING_READ it was intentional. Unless reads are always in
order??? I have to make sure the clock gating disable propogates before
I can read the L3 registers.

Ben