> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cheng, Michael <[email protected]>
> Sent: Friday, January 28, 2022 2:10 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Cc: Cheng, Michael <[email protected]>; Bowman, Casey G
> <[email protected]>; De Marchi, Lucas
> <[email protected]>; Boyer, Wayne <[email protected]>;
> [email protected]; Kuoppala, Mika <[email protected]>;
> Auld, Matthew <[email protected]>
> Subject: [PATCH v2 3/4] drm/i915/gt: Re-work reset_csb
>
> Use drm_clflush_virt_range instead of directly invoking clflush. This will
> prevent compiler errors when building for non-x86 architectures.
>
> Signed-off-by: Michael Cheng <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_execlists_submission.c | 2 ++
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_execlists_submission.c
> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_execlists_submission.c
> index 90b5daf9433d..e8a2e2683b81 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_execlists_submission.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_execlists_submission.c
> @@ -2951,6 +2951,8 @@ reset_csb(struct intel_engine_cs *engine, struct
> i915_request **inactive)
>
> mb(); /* paranoia: read the CSB pointers from after the reset */
> clflush(execlists->csb_write);
> + drm_clflush_virt_range(execlists->csb_write,
> + sizeof(execlists->csb_write));
I only see the insertion of drm_clflush_virt_range() here, not the removal of
the
clflush() call, which sounds like it's supposed to be replaced here, based on
your
commit message.
> mb();
>
> inactive = process_csb(engine, inactive); /* drain preemption events
> */
> --
> 2.25.1
