Hi Janusz,
On Fri, Jul 21, 2023 at 09:25:03AM +0000, Krzysztofik, Janusz wrote:
Hi Andy,
On Thursday, 20 July 2023 23:07:30 CEST Andi Shyti wrote:
We always assumed that a device might either have AUX or FLAT CCS, but this is an approximation that is not always true
If there exists a device that can have CCSs that fall into either none or both of those categories then I think we should have that device or two listed here as an example, regardless of deducible from the change or not. Or if there are no such devices so far, but we are going to introduce some, then I think we should provide that information here.
true! I will improve the commit log.
[...]
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_pci.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_pci.c @@ -643,7 +643,8 @@ static const struct intel_device_info jsl_info = { TGL_CACHELEVEL, \ .has_global_mocs = 1, \ .has_pxp = 1, \
- .max_pat_index = 3
- .max_pat_index = 3, \
- .has_aux_ccs = 1
NIT: Can we please have the last element also followed by comma, like in other places (e.g. see below)? That will simplify future patches.
Other than that, LGTM.
As Andrzej and Matt suggested I will take another approach, i.e. adding a helper function that tells whether the aux invalidation is necessary or not.
Thanks, Andi