On Fri, Sep 02, 2011 at 09:56:31AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > On Thu, 1 Sep 2011 19:51:11 -0700, Ben Widawsky <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, 01 Sep 2011 11:03:07 -0700 > > Eric Anholt <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Wed, 31 Aug 2011 12:47:22 -0700, Ben Widawsky <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > Assertion + unsigned helps catch potential issues. > > > > > > > > From the docs it is hard to tell if the global GTT flag is actually > > > > needed, but it shouldn't hurt. > > > > > > We're updating a register, not the GTT, so I don't see why the flag > > > would be relevant. > > > > The patch is as (ir)relevant as without it which implies PPGTT. The > > reason it was there is in another branch I was planning to implement > > memory based semaphores. > > Memory based semaphores required working ppgtt, afaict. > -Chris
Hmm, nothing in the docs suggested to me that it wouldn't work. I know for sure it won't work on the simulator. So long as the semaphore commands are being issued from a secure batch, I don't see why ppgtt *should* be a requirement. I think the whole point of the gGTT flag is to allow inter-contexct synchronization without needing to have identical ppgtt mappings. I was planning to give it a shot today, but based on the simulator I suspect it won't work. Ben _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
