Re: [PATCH 10/10] drm/i915: Use MI_BATCH_BUFFER_START on 830/845

["Ville Syrjälä" <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>]

On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 04:58:54PM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 06:23:49PM +0200, ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com wrote:
> > From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
> > 
> > MI_BATCH_BUFFER is nasty since it requires that userspace pass in the
> > correct batch length.
> > 
> > Let's switch to using MI_BATCH_BUFFER_START instead (like we do on
> > other platforms). Then we don't have to specify the batch length
> > at all, and the CS will instead execute until it sees the
> > MI_BATCH_BUFFER_END.
> 
> Oh. My. Gosh. There's a BB_START?!!!

Looks like ;) At least my 830 seems perfectly happy with it. Well,
as happy as it's ever been. Though I still couldn't get it complete
a piglit run without hanging last I tried.

> 
> > We still need the batch length since we do the CS TLB workaround
> > and copy the batch into the permanently pinned scratch object
> > and execute it from there. But for this we can simply use the
> > batch object length when the user hasn't specified the actual
> > batch length. So specifying the batch length becomes just a
> > way to optimize the batch copy a little bit.
> > 
> > We lost batch_len from a bunch of igts (including the quiesce batch)
> > so without this igt is utterly broken on 830/845. Also some igts such
> > as gem_cpu_reloc never specified the batch_len and so didn't work.
> > With MI_BATCH_BUFFER_START we don't have to fix up igt every time
> > someone forgets that 830/845 exist.
> > 
> > Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
> > Signed-off-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
> 
> Looks sane.
> -Chris
> 
> -- 
> Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre

-- 
Ville Syrjälä
Intel OTC
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx