On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 03:12:50PM +0000, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> +static int
> +eb_select_ring(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
> + struct drm_file *file,
> + struct drm_i915_gem_execbuffer2 *args,
> + struct intel_engine_cs **ring)
> +{
> + unsigned int user_ring_id = args->flags & I915_EXEC_RING_MASK;
> +
> + if (user_ring_id > I915_USER_RINGS) {
> + DRM_DEBUG("execbuf with unknown ring: %u\n", user_ring_id);
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> +
> + if ((user_ring_id != I915_EXEC_BSD) &&
> + ((args->flags & I915_EXEC_BSD_MASK) != 0)) {
> + DRM_DEBUG("execbuf with non bsd ring but with invalid "
> + "bsd dispatch flags: %d\n", (int)(args->flags));
Not your bug, but we should limit the flags reported here to
(int)(args->flags & I915_EXEC_BSD_MASK).
Though actually just nuke the test. At the moment, we complain for !BSD,
then allow them even if we don't have BSD2 (and ignore the setting).
A little inconsistent.
If we just document that these flags only provide extra selection
criteria for the I915_EXEC_BSD ring, we would be done. I'll pretend that
it is adequately documented...
Looks good and we completed our review of ABI impact for reordering
the ring ids, so
Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson <[email protected]>
-Chris
--
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
