From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Lionel Landwerlin Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 6/7] drm/i915: Expose RPCS (SSEU) configuration to userspace Date: Thu, 24 May 2018 12:01:48 +0100 Message-ID: References: <20180522180002.11522-1-lionel.g.landwerlin@intel.com> <20180522180002.11522-7-lionel.g.landwerlin@intel.com> <6c5a39d5-2f0c-ed38-5485-9390ea7d469c@linux.intel.com> <67df2a62-ce08-e267-4f96-5eab445cd8f0@intel.com> <034d6f31-cc3e-59c8-a759-a099dd001f56@linux.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1379739723==" Return-path: Received: from mga11.intel.com (mga11.intel.com [192.55.52.93]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B3B656E01C for ; Thu, 24 May 2018 11:01:52 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: <034d6f31-cc3e-59c8-a759-a099dd001f56@linux.intel.com> Content-Language: en-US List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org Sender: "Intel-gfx" To: Tvrtko Ursulin , intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --===============1379739723== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------40549C4DD493E7702A0AE6AC" Content-Language: en-US This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------40549C4DD493E7702A0AE6AC Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 24/05/18 11:43, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > >> >>> >>>> + >>>> +    /* >>>> +     * Mask of slices to enable for the context. Valid values are >>>> a subset >>>> +     * of the bitmask value returned for I915_PARAM_SLICE_MASK. >>>> +     */ >>>> +    __u8 slice_mask; >>>> + >>>> +    /* >>>> +     * Mask of subslices to enable for the context. Valid values >>>> are a >>>> +     * subset of the bitmask value return by >>>> I915_PARAM_SUBSLICE_MASK. >>>> +     */ >>>> +    __u8 subslice_mask; >>> >>> Is this future proof enough, say for Gen11? >> >> As far as I can see, this fits. >> No objection to bump it to 16/32bits if you'd like. > > Feel like I've asked you this before, sorry - nothing in the future > will need per slice subslice mask? As far as I can see this remains the same uniform subslice per slice programming style. We could play it safe and put all the masks in 64bits in the uAPI. What do you think? > > Regards, > > Tvrtko --------------40549C4DD493E7702A0AE6AC Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
On 24/05/18 11:43, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:



+
+    /*
+     * Mask of slices to enable for the context. Valid values are a subset
+     * of the bitmask value returned for I915_PARAM_SLICE_MASK.
+     */
+    __u8 slice_mask;
+
+    /*
+     * Mask of subslices to enable for the context. Valid values are a
+     * subset of the bitmask value return by I915_PARAM_SUBSLICE_MASK.
+     */
+    __u8 subslice_mask;

Is this future proof enough, say for Gen11?

As far as I can see, this fits.
No objection to bump it to 16/32bits if you'd like.

Feel like I've asked you this before, sorry - nothing in the future will need per slice subslice mask?

As far as I can see this remains the same uniform subslice per slice programming style.
We could play it safe and put all the masks in 64bits in the uAPI.

What do you think?


Regards,

Tvrtko


--------------40549C4DD493E7702A0AE6AC-- --===============1379739723== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: inline X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18KSW50ZWwtZ2Z4 IG1haWxpbmcgbGlzdApJbnRlbC1nZnhAbGlzdHMuZnJlZWRlc2t0b3Aub3JnCmh0dHBzOi8vbGlz dHMuZnJlZWRlc2t0b3Aub3JnL21haWxtYW4vbGlzdGluZm8vaW50ZWwtZ2Z4Cg== --===============1379739723==--