On Thu, Jul 01, 2021 at 03:36:49PM +0100, Matthew Auld wrote:
> It's a noop on DG1, and in the future when need to support other devices
> which let us control the coherency, then it should be an immutable
> creation time property for the BO.
>
> Suggested-by: Daniel Vetter <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Matthew Auld <[email protected]>
> Cc: Thomas Hellström <[email protected]>
> Cc: Maarten Lankhorst <[email protected]>
> Cc: Kenneth Graunke <[email protected]>
> Cc: Jason Ekstrand <[email protected]>
> Cc: Daniel Vetter <[email protected]>
> Cc: Ramalingam C <[email protected]>
For this and the next can you pls add kerneldoc for the uapi structs and
then add a note there that on dgfx they're disallowed? Same for the next
one.
At least I'd like if we can document uapi here as we go, so that we have
something to point people to when they as "what has changed? what should I
do in my userspace driver?".
Also please make sure these two have acks from mesa devs before you land
them.
Thanks, Daniel
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_domain.c | 6 ++++++
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_domain.c
> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_domain.c
> index 7d1400b13429..43004bef55cb 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_domain.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_domain.c
> @@ -268,6 +268,9 @@ int i915_gem_get_caching_ioctl(struct drm_device *dev,
> void *data,
> struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj;
> int err = 0;
>
> + if (IS_DGFX(to_i915(dev)))
> + return -ENODEV;
> +
> rcu_read_lock();
> obj = i915_gem_object_lookup_rcu(file, args->handle);
> if (!obj) {
> @@ -303,6 +306,9 @@ int i915_gem_set_caching_ioctl(struct drm_device *dev,
> void *data,
> enum i915_cache_level level;
> int ret = 0;
>
> + if (IS_DGFX(i915))
> + return -ENODEV;
> +
> switch (args->caching) {
> case I915_CACHING_NONE:
> level = I915_CACHE_NONE;
> --
> 2.26.3
>
--
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch
