From: "Summers, Stuart" <stuart.summers@intel.com>
To: "De Marchi, Lucas" <lucas.demarchi@intel.com>
Cc: "intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org" <intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org>,
"Brost, Matthew" <matthew.brost@intel.com>,
"Nerlige Ramappa, Umesh" <umesh.nerlige.ramappa@intel.com>,
"tvrtko.ursulin@igalia.com" <tvrtko.ursulin@igalia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/7] drm/xe/lrc: Remove leftover TODO
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2025 21:44:51 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <8314fcfb7ca13296469b68cb77392933d118d453.camel@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <wxagvld5vyqf7sb2h6l3kee7b4uvgrvb7hclw4rpy2idqmreif@4csjak43m3hk>
On Wed, 2025-07-09 at 16:24 -0500, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 09, 2025 at 07:37:02PM +0000, Stuart Summers wrote:
> > On Thu, 2025-07-03 at 15:41 -0700, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
> > > There isn't anything to set for CTX_TIMESTAMP handling in the
> > > empty
> > > LRC, that is set on every LRC init since it should always start
> > > from
> > > 0
> > > rather than the value saved in the image after first submission.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@intel.com>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_lrc.c | 2 --
> > > 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_lrc.c
> > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_lrc.c
> > > index 75f4678cb090a..2c735b3679f86 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_lrc.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_lrc.c
> > > @@ -603,8 +603,6 @@ static void set_context_control(u32 *regs,
> > > struct
> > > xe_hw_engine *hwe)
> > > if (xe_gt_has_indirect_ring_state(hwe->gt))
> > > regs[CTX_CONTEXT_CONTROL] |=
> > > _MASKED_BIT_ENABLE(CTX_CTRL_INDIRECT_RING
> > > _STA
> > > TE_ENABLE);
> > > -
> > > - /* TODO: Timestamp */
> >
> > Seems interesting to add your commit comment here instead of the
> > TODO
> > unless we're already documenting that somewhere else.
>
> It seems counter productive to add a comment in a random place about
> things that are done elsewhere. If this was "the normal place to do
> it,
> but handled elsewhere", ok. But this is not and it's still here
> because
> it went unnoticed when the timestamp handling was added.
I'm just thinking about implicit zeroing, but what you said here makes
sense too. I agree the documentation would be better elsewhere and not
really tied to the TODO:
Reviewed-by: Stuart Summers <stuart.summers@intel.com>
>
> Lucas De Marchi
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-07-09 21:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-07-03 22:41 [PATCH 0/7] drm/xe: LRC refactors Lucas De Marchi
2025-07-03 22:41 ` [PATCH 1/7] drm/xe/lrc: Reduce scope of empty lrc data Lucas De Marchi
2025-07-04 10:07 ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2025-07-08 5:01 ` Matthew Brost
2025-07-03 22:41 ` [PATCH 2/7] drm/xe: Count dwords before allocating Lucas De Marchi
2025-07-04 10:20 ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2025-07-07 3:30 ` Lucas De Marchi
2025-07-07 23:09 ` Lucas De Marchi
2025-07-03 22:41 ` [PATCH 3/7] drm/xe/gt: Extract emit_job_sync() Lucas De Marchi
2025-07-04 10:35 ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2025-07-08 0:59 ` Lucas De Marchi
2025-07-03 22:41 ` [PATCH 4/7] drm/xe/lrc: Add table with LRC layout Lucas De Marchi
2025-07-04 10:41 ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2025-07-08 1:02 ` Lucas De Marchi
2025-07-03 22:41 ` [PATCH 5/7] drm/xe/lrc: Remove leftover TODO Lucas De Marchi
2025-07-08 5:08 ` Matthew Brost
2025-07-08 12:46 ` Lucas De Marchi
2025-07-09 19:37 ` Summers, Stuart
2025-07-09 21:24 ` Lucas De Marchi
2025-07-09 21:44 ` Summers, Stuart [this message]
2025-07-03 22:41 ` [PATCH 6/7] drm/xe/gt: Drop third submission for default context Lucas De Marchi
2025-07-04 11:21 ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2025-07-08 2:55 ` Lucas De Marchi
2025-07-08 4:59 ` Matthew Brost
2025-07-08 5:05 ` Matthew Brost
2025-07-09 7:34 ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2025-07-03 22:41 ` [PATCH 7/7] drm/xe: Waste fewer instructions in emit_wa_job() Lucas De Marchi
2025-07-08 7:54 ` Matthew Brost
2025-07-03 22:49 ` ✗ CI.checkpatch: warning for drm/xe: LRC refactors Patchwork
2025-07-03 22:50 ` ✓ CI.KUnit: success " Patchwork
2025-07-03 23:26 ` ✓ Xe.CI.BAT: " Patchwork
2025-07-05 17:33 ` ✗ Xe.CI.Full: failure " Patchwork
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=8314fcfb7ca13296469b68cb77392933d118d453.camel@intel.com \
--to=stuart.summers@intel.com \
--cc=intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=lucas.demarchi@intel.com \
--cc=matthew.brost@intel.com \
--cc=tvrtko.ursulin@igalia.com \
--cc=umesh.nerlige.ramappa@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