From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ben Widawsky <ben@bwidawsk.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/15] drm/i915: Don't emit mbox updates
 without semaphores
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 14:02:23 -0800
Message-ID: <20131217220223.GA10071@bwidawsk.net>
References: <1387255851-24824-1-git-send-email-benjamin.widawsky@intel.com>
	<1387255851-24824-3-git-send-email-benjamin.widawsky@intel.com>
	<20131217192441.GU22448@nuc-i3427.alporthouse.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org>
Received: from mail.bwidawsk.net (bwidawsk.net [166.78.191.112])
	by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42D74FD3C3
	for <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>;
	Tue, 17 Dec 2013 14:02:28 -0800 (PST)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20131217192441.GU22448@nuc-i3427.alporthouse.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@lists.freedesktop.org
Errors-To: intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org
To: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>, Ben Widawsky <benjamin.widawsky@intel.com>, Intel GFX <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>
List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org

On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 07:24:41PM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 08:50:38PM -0800, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> > Aside from the fact that it leaves confusing dumps on error capture, it
> > is entirely unnecessary, and potentially harmful in cases like BDW,
> > where the instruction has changed.
> > 
> > In reality (seemingly), this will have no behavioral impact.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Ben Widawsky <ben@bwidawsk.net>
> 
> The reason why we currently do is because i915.semaphores can change at
> runtime. So we emit the instructions whilst i915.semaphores=0 just in
> case, it is enabled later. This restriction can be lifted with a little
> more work in handling the missed semaphores, I think, or it may just
> require a proof that everything is safe as is.
> -Chris
> 


It should still check the module parameter - I guess it would be nice to
guard changing the module parameter with struct_mutex (generally, not
just here), as that also breaks the emit path.

So in short, I think it's broken for two reasons.

My (and Daniel's) vote is to just make the module param static.

-- 
Ben Widawsky, Intel Open Source Technology Center