By default i915_ttm_cache_level() decides I915_CACHE_LLC if HAS_SNOOP. this is divergent from existing backends code which only considers HAS_LLC. Testing shows that trusting snooping on gen5- is unreliable, so limit to gen6+
Signed-off-by: Robert Beckett bob.beckett@collabora.com --- drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_ttm_move.c | 4 +++- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_ttm_move.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_ttm_move.c index 4c1de0b4a10f..e6cce35edb65 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_ttm_move.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_ttm_move.c @@ -46,7 +46,9 @@ static enum i915_cache_level i915_ttm_cache_level(struct drm_i915_private *i915, struct ttm_resource *res, struct ttm_tt *ttm) { - return ((HAS_LLC(i915) || HAS_SNOOP(i915)) && + bool can_snoop = HAS_SNOOP(i915) && (GRAPHICS_VER(i915) > 5); + + return ((HAS_LLC(i915) || can_snoop) && !i915_ttm_gtt_binds_lmem(res) && ttm->caching == ttm_cached) ? I915_CACHE_LLC : I915_CACHE_NONE;