On 17/05/18 08:37, Chris Wilson wrote:
Quoting Antonio Argenziano (2018-05-17 16:08:14)


On 17/05/18 01:23, Chris Wilson wrote:
Confirm we have the available HW before asserting it succeeds.

Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk>
---
   tests/gem_cpu_reloc.c | 1 +
   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

diff --git a/tests/gem_cpu_reloc.c b/tests/gem_cpu_reloc.c
index 882c312d4..e3bbcd239 100644
--- a/tests/gem_cpu_reloc.c
+++ b/tests/gem_cpu_reloc.c
@@ -167,6 +167,7 @@ static void run_test(int fd, int count)
       use_blt = 0;

Is this^ meant to be EXEC_DEFAULT?

Depends on your viewpoint. EXEC_DEFAULT is zero.

Just wandering if it should enforce EXEC_RENDER. Which I think is what we want for gen 5-.


       if (intel_gen(noop) >= 6)
               use_blt = I915_EXEC_BLT;
+     gem_require_ring(fd, use_blt);

Are any gens 6+ that do not have a BLT ring? if that is the case
shouldn't we use '0' like we do for 5- gens?

No, it has to match the engine for which the blitter commands are valid. If
that engine does not exist, there is no alternative except to rewrite the
test not to use those commands. If there was, it indeed would be included
in the selection above.

So, just to wrap my head around it, the commands we are talking about here are allowed on render for gen5- but only on blitter on 6+. Right?

Thanks,
Antonio

-Chris

_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

Reply via email to