Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2] drm/i915: Drop support for I915_EXEC_CONSTANTS_* execbuf parameters.

2017-02-15 Thread Kenneth Graunke
On Wednesday, February 15, 2017 12:12:50 AM PST Chris Wilson wrote: > On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 08:17:51PM -0800, Kenneth Graunke wrote: > > This patch makes the I915_PARAM_HAS_EXEC_CONSTANTS getparam return 0 > > (indicating the optional feature is not supported), and makes execbuf > > always

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2] drm/i915: Drop support for I915_EXEC_CONSTANTS_* execbuf parameters.

2017-02-15 Thread Chris Wilson
On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 08:17:51PM -0800, Kenneth Graunke wrote: > This patch makes the I915_PARAM_HAS_EXEC_CONSTANTS getparam return 0 > (indicating the optional feature is not supported), and makes execbuf > always return -EINVAL if the flags are used. > > Apparently, no userspace ever shipped

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2] drm/i915: Drop support for I915_EXEC_CONSTANTS_* execbuf parameters.

2017-02-14 Thread Joonas Lahtinen
On ti, 2017-02-14 at 20:17 -0800, Kenneth Graunke wrote: > This patch makes the I915_PARAM_HAS_EXEC_CONSTANTS getparam return 0 > (indicating the optional feature is not supported), and makes execbuf > always return -EINVAL if the flags are used. > > Apparently, no userspace ever shipped which

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2] drm/i915: Drop support for I915_EXEC_CONSTANTS_* execbuf parameters.

2017-02-14 Thread Kenneth Graunke
This patch makes the I915_PARAM_HAS_EXEC_CONSTANTS getparam return 0 (indicating the optional feature is not supported), and makes execbuf always return -EINVAL if the flags are used. Apparently, no userspace ever shipped which used this optional feature: I checked the git history of Mesa,