On 20/02/18 11:05, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 15/02/2018 12:02, 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 15/02/2018 12:02, 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
On 16/02/18 12:28, Joonas Lahtinen wrote:
Quoting Lionel Landwerlin (2018-02-15 14:02:02)
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
Quoting Lionel Landwerlin (2018-02-15 14:02:02)
> 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 aggr
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
