On 16/01/18 08:42, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 15/01/2018 18:23, Lionel Landwerlin wrote:
On 15/01/18 17:54, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 15/01/2018 14:41, Lionel Landwerlin wrote:
With the introduction of asymmetric slices in CNL, we cannot rely on
the previous SUBSLICE_MASK getparam to tell users
On 15/01/2018 18:23, Lionel Landwerlin wrote:
On 15/01/18 17:54, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 15/01/2018 14:41, Lionel Landwerlin wrote:
With the introduction of asymmetric slices in CNL, we cannot rely on
the previous SUBSLICE_MASK getparam to tell userspace what subslices
are available. Here we
On 15/01/18 17:54, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 15/01/2018 14:41, Lionel Landwerlin wrote:
With the introduction of asymmetric slices in CNL, we cannot rely on
the previous SUBSLICE_MASK getparam to tell userspace what subslices
are available. Here we introduce a more detailed way of querying the
G
On 15/01/2018 14:41, Lionel Landwerlin wrote:
With the introduction of asymmetric slices in CNL, we cannot rely on
the previous SUBSLICE_MASK getparam to tell userspace what subslices
are available. Here we introduce a more detailed way of querying the
Gen's GPU topology that doesn't aggregate n
With the introduction of asymmetric slices in CNL, we cannot rely on
the previous SUBSLICE_MASK getparam to tell userspace what subslices
are available. Here we introduce a more detailed way of querying the
Gen's GPU topology that doesn't aggregate numbers.
This is essential for monitoring parts o
