From: Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@linux.intel.com>
To: Jonathan Cavitt <jonathan.cavitt@intel.com>
Cc: chris.p.wilson@linux.intel.com, intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org,
matthew.d.roper@intel.com, janusz.krzysztofik@intel.com,
nirmoy.das@intel.com
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH dii-client v6 2/5] drm/i915: Define and use GuC and CTB TLB invalidation routines
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2023 15:58:34 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZR7BCq2HrKmE05Jf@ashyti-mobl2.lan> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20231004220739.1313307-4-jonathan.cavitt@intel.com>
Hi Jonathan,
> - if (intel_uc_wants_guc(&ggtt->vm.gt->uc))
> + if (intel_uc_wants_guc_submission(&ggtt->vm.gt->uc))
I think the failures we see in CI come from here. I think you had
it right the first time, this should have both the checks:
if (intel_uc_wants_guc(&ggtt->vm.gt->uc) &&
intel_uc_wants_guc_submission(&ggtt->vm.gt->uc))
The first is checking whether GuC is enabled, the second is
checking if the submission is enabled.
AFAU, running through the net of
is_supported/wanted/enabled/disabled/gone/awol/onholiday/chillingout/.../
there is a distinction between supported and enabled. The
condition for GuC submission to be enabled is to have GuC
supported, but not necessarily enabled.
So answering Tvrtko's question: No,
intel_uc_wants_guc_submission() does not imply
intel_uc_wants_guc().
Question to GuC experts... should it be?
Andi
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-10-05 13:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-10-04 22:07 [Intel-gfx] [PATCH dii-client v6 0/5] Subject: [PATCH dii-client v6 0/4] drm/i915: Define and use GuC and CTB TLB invalidation routines Jonathan Cavitt
2023-10-04 22:07 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH dii-client v6 1/5] drm/i915: Add GuC TLB Invalidation pci flags Jonathan Cavitt
2023-10-04 22:27 ` Michal Wajdeczko
2023-10-05 13:15 ` Jani Nikula
2023-10-04 22:07 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH dii-client v6 1/4] drm/i915: Add GuC TLB Invalidation pci tags Jonathan Cavitt
2023-10-04 22:07 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH dii-client v6 2/5] drm/i915: Define and use GuC and CTB TLB invalidation routines Jonathan Cavitt
2023-10-04 22:48 ` Michal Wajdeczko
2023-10-05 13:58 ` Andi Shyti [this message]
2023-10-04 22:07 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH dii-client v6 3/5] drm/i915: No TLB invalidation on wedged or suspended GT Jonathan Cavitt
2023-10-04 22:07 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH dii-client v6 4/5] drm/i915/gt: Increase sleep in gt_tlb selftest sanitycheck Jonathan Cavitt
2023-10-04 22:07 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH dii-client v6 5/5] drm/i915: Enable GuC TLB invalidations for MTL Jonathan Cavitt
2023-10-05 2:53 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.CHECKPATCH: warning for Subject: [PATCH dii-client v6 0/4] drm/i915: Define and use GuC and CTB TLB invalidation routines Patchwork
2023-10-05 2:53 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.SPARSE: " Patchwork
2023-10-05 3:16 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.BAT: failure " Patchwork
2023-10-05 13:00 ` Andi Shyti
2023-10-05 13:03 ` Andi Shyti
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=ZR7BCq2HrKmE05Jf@ashyti-mobl2.lan \
--to=andi.shyti@linux.intel.com \
--cc=chris.p.wilson@linux.intel.com \
--cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=janusz.krzysztofik@intel.com \
--cc=jonathan.cavitt@intel.com \
--cc=matthew.d.roper@intel.com \
--cc=nirmoy.das@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox