On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 02:23:35PM +0000, Antoine, Peter wrote: > No, It's not debug. > It's for syncing and aligning (and validating) the open-source userspace with > the kernel cache policy.
Why doesn't userspace just use SRM to read registers? The spec gives me the impression that SRM doesn't care whether the register is privileged or not. > > As for the name being wrong, I'll change that. > > As for the sysfs, would you prefer the following structure: > > mocs/size > mocs/control_state > mocs/l3cc_state > > for the different tables? > > Peter. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Chris Wilson [mailto:ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk] > Sent: Wednesday, May 4, 2016 2:47 PM > To: Antoine, Peter <peter.anto...@intel.com> > Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org; Widawsky, Benjamin > <benjamin.widaw...@intel.com> > Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915/sysfs: Adding mocs_state > > On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 02:32:53PM +0100, Peter Antoine wrote: > > Will wait for more comments, then will respin with a different commit > > message. Is the rest of the patch ok? > > No, you've put debug information into sysfs. (Also sysfs is one value per > file.) sysfs does not match your goal of validation. And you exported an > internal function (get_mocs...) without giving it a proper name. > -Chris > > -- > Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre > _______________________________________________ > Intel-gfx mailing list > Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx -- Ville Syrjälä Intel OTC _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
