On 29/04/2016 09:49, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 09:36:37AM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>> On 28/04/16 17:24, Chris Wilson wrote:
>>> With the introduction of a distinct engine->id vs the hardware id, we need
>>> to fix up the value we use for selecting the target engine when signaling
>>> a semaphore. Note that these values can be merged with engine->guc_id.
>> So I broke something more with the decoupling, did not realize. I
>> suppose it was still worth it. This at least wasn't being used.
> A consolation prize: wean the guc over to a common hw_id :)
> -Chris
As in, use the GuC's concept of the engine ID for other purposes too?

.Dave.