Re: [PATCH v2 0/8] Gen9 HW whitelist and Preemption WA patches

[Arun Siluvery <arun.siluvery@linux.intel.com>]

On 21/01/2016 16:56, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 04:07:22PM +0000, Arun Siluvery wrote:
>> On 21/01/2016 15:17, Chris Wilson wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 02:00:39PM +0000, Arun Siluvery wrote:
>>>> Resending all patches as told by Daniel because I didn't use correct
>>>> message-id while replying updated version of Patch1 before which means
>>>> patchwork won't pickup and we won't have CI results. Previous updates
>>>> regarding Patch1 are available at https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/70527/
>>>>
>>>> Some of the WA patches are now reviewed so I added r-b tags for them.
>>>>
>>>> Reviewed: 1, 2, 3, 5, 6
>>>> Updated: 4 (to address review comment)
>>>> To be reviewed: 4, 7, 8
>>>>
>>>> Arun Siluvery (8):
>>>>    drm/i915/gen9: Add framework to whitelist specific GPU registers
>>>>    drm/i915/gen9: Add GEN8_CS_CHICKEN1 to HW whitelist
>>>>    drm/i915/gen9: Add HDC_CHICKEN1 to HW whitelist
>>>>    drm/i915/bxt: Add GEN9_CS_DEBUG_MODE1 to HW whitelist
>>>>    drm/i915/bxt: Add GEN8_L3SQCREG4 to HW whitelist
>>>>    drm/i915/skl: Add GEN8_L3SQCREG4 to HW whitelist
>>>>    drm/i915/skl: Enable Per context Preemption granularity control
>>>>    drm/i915/gen9: Add WaOCLCoherentLineFlush
>>>
>>> With bland changelogs, it is impossible to assess the severity of the
>>> issues being addressed. How many of these do we need to apply to kernel
>>> release to address potential user impact? Which do backporters need?
>>> Are they critical stability fixes or power tuning or enabling for future
>>> features?
>>> -Chris
>>>
>> All of these changes are required for Preemption so they affect Gen9
>> only. The whitelist changes are really to support for preemption WA
>> that are going to be part of UMD. The WA data is sketchy and for
>> some of them hsd links are not available so I don't really know the
>> details.
>
> Are you happy with adding "Required for future enabling of pre-emptive
> command execution" to each? It just helps clarify the purpose of the
> patch, and as I said helps answer the question of "do I need to backport
> this to stable kernels".
yes it helps, will add it and resend.

regards
Arun

> -Chris
>

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