On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 10:14 PM, Matt Arsenault <arse...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Jul 6, 2017, at 13:08, Dave Airlie <airl...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On 7 July 2017 at 05:07, Matt Arsenault <arse...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On Jul 5, 2017, at 19:09, Dave Airlie <airl...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> From: Dave Airlie <airl...@redhat.com> >>>> >>>> Use family, but only set xnack+ for gfx9. >>>> >>> >>> The driver shouldn’t be explicitly setting this. This should be set as part >>> of the subtarget chosen >> >> Well I expect Marek knows more (I'm just aligning the drivers). >> >> If I had to guess, it's probably because Carrizo sets xnack in the >> subtarget but we don't want to use it. >> >> Dave. > > This is the problematic part, if you explicitly disable a subtarget feature > when it is set in the subtarget’s feature list, it for some reason disables > all of the features in the subtarget
I don't understand that. Wouldn't it break everything? xnack should be a function attribute, because xnack is a per-VMID setting that can be changed anytime. For example, you can have a compute VMID where xnack is disabled and another compute VMID where xnack is enabled. Marek _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
