Quoting Oscar Mateo (2018-02-09 23:46:31)
> On 02/09/2018 02:35 PM, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > In order to allow the compiler to use a known constant number of
> > available engines, disable modification of intel_device_static_info
> > during engine bring up. Instead of trying to gracefully hide the broken
> > setup, error out -- in theory, this should be caught during power on.
> We are about to have a case for dynamic number of available engines. 
> It's one of the ICL patches:
> drm/i915/icl: Check for fused-off VDBOX and VEBOX instances
> intel_device_runtime_info as well?

Hmm, ring_mask is more widely used than I was expecting. I think we want
both, static_info if we ever think we can benefit from single-platform
LTO of the engines, but whether to use runtime_info or i915->gt.engine_mask
(and move the engine maps to i915->gt as well).

Advantage of runtime_info, centralised place for debugging.
Disadvantage of runtime_info, centralised place far from code.

Maybe we don't need to say everything is inside runtime_info (just
anything that doesn't fit elsewhere?), but use the hooks for debugging?
Maybe having a central runtime_info is simply a bad idea?
Intel-gfx mailing list

Reply via email to