On 03/27/2014 01:16 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 4:57 PM, Volkin, Bradley D > <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 12:57:21AM -0700, Daniel Vetter wrote: >>> Another one that blows is igt/gen7_forcewake_mt. Not sure yet whether it's >>> an issue with the test or the checker: >>> >>> https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=76670 >> >> For this one, the parser rejects an MI_STORE_REGISTER_MEM with the GGTT bit >> set. We don't currently allow that, even from master. It sounds like there >> might be released versions of the ddx that do this as well. If that's the >> case, or if there are other situations where tests, etc rely on being able >> to do whatever they want when setting the I915_DISPATCH_SECURE flag, then I >> think we might as well stop parsing secure batches and let them go through >> as before. > > Well for the testcase I think we can just add the missing flag. If > there's indeed shipping userspace out there which is getting these > flags wrong then I think we need to silently upgrade them when copying > the cmds over to the 2nd batch. But I guess until that need is really > established we can hope we don't need this. > -Daniel
Why are we parsing batches with I915_EXEC_SECURE at all? Secure batches are only issued from trusted code which is guaranteed to be running as root. I don't see any benefit to scanning those batches, and there's definitely overhead. I mean, sure, it may be reasonable in the short term as a way to test the command parser, but I certainly hope we don't *ship* that. --Ken
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
