On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 11:22:00AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> For some reason snb has 2 fields to set ppgtt cacheability. This one
> here does not exist on gen7.
>
> This might explain why ppgtt wasn't a win on snb like on ivb - not
> enough pte caching.
So, is it a win now?
>
> Signed-Off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vet...@ffwll.ch>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c | 3 +++
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h | 4 ++++
> 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
> index 5dc5f42..cab70ef 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
> @@ -3766,6 +3766,9 @@ void i915_gem_init_ppgtt(struct drm_device *dev)
> if (INTEL_INFO(dev)->gen == 6) {
> uint32_t ecochk, gab_ctl, ecobits;
>
> + ecobits = I915_READ(GAC_ECO_BITS);
> + I915_WRITE(GAC_ECO_BITS, ecobits | ECOBITS_PPGTT_CACHE64B);
> +
> gab_ctl = I915_READ(GAB_CTL);
> I915_WRITE(GAB_CTL, gab_ctl | GAB_CTL_CONT_AFTER_PAGEFAULT);
>
Is this a bad rebase? This doesn't apply to whatever I am using.
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h
> index e72c251..5457980 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h
> @@ -125,6 +125,10 @@
> #define ECOCHK_PPGTT_CACHE64B (0x3<<3)
> #define ECOCHK_PPGTT_CACHE4B (0x0<<3)
>
> +#define GAC_ECO_BITS 0x14090
> +#define ECOBITS_PPGTT_CACHE64B (3<<8)
> +#define ECOBITS_PPGTT_CACHE4B (0<<8)
> +
> #define GAB_CTL 0x24000
> #define GAB_CTL_CONT_AFTER_PAGEFAULT (1<<8)
>
According to bspec, but 13 must be set to a 1 also.
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
