From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/43] Execlists v5
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2014 09:29:52 -0700
Message-ID: <20140801092952.2fee5c3f@jbarnes-desktop>
References: <1406217891-8912-1-git-send-email-thomas.daniel@intel.com>
 <20140801160950.GA10729@strange.amr.corp.intel.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-pd0-f171.google.com (mail-pd0-f171.google.com
 [209.85.192.171])
 by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A06836E29B
 for <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>; Fri,  1 Aug 2014 09:29:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pd0-f171.google.com with SMTP id z10so5825463pdj.30
 for <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>; Fri, 01 Aug 2014 09:29:41 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20140801160950.GA10729@strange.amr.corp.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>
Errors-To: intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org
Sender: "Intel-gfx" <intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org>
To: Damien Lespiau <damien.lespiau@intel.com>
Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org

On Fri, 1 Aug 2014 17:09:50 +0100
Damien Lespiau <damien.lespiau@intel.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 05:04:08PM +0100, Thomas Daniel wrote:
> 
> All patches can have my r-b tag but patches 12, 34, 37, 39 which have
> minor comments (in terms of code changes) to address. I did look more at
> the low-level stuff (Vs the higher level abstractions).
> 
> At this point, I believe the way forward is to merge that series to
> allow more people to beat on it. Step 1 is to make sure we don't regress
> the legacy ring buffers and now is a good time to land it as we start a
> new kernel cycle.
> 
> Whether to enable it by default for BDW is an interesting question that
> may depend on the first round of QA.

Yeah I think we want to enable it on BDW too after getting some testing
and sanity checking.  The legacy ring buffers aren't getting much
testing elsewhere and I'm afraid we'll run into issues that don't exist
with the execlist path if we stick with the legacy submission path (we
may have already hit one in fact).

-- 
Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center