Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Fri, 1 May 2020 11:07:31 -0700
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
To:     "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@zx2c4.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org,
        dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, bigeasy@linutronix.de,
        tglx@linutronix.de, chris@chris-wilson.co.uk,
        stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: check to see if SIMD registers are available
 before using SIMD
Message-ID: <20200501180731.GA2485@infradead.org>
References: <20200430221016.3866-1-Jason@zx2c4.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200430221016.3866-1-Jason@zx2c4.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 04:10:16PM -0600, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> Sometimes it's not okay to use SIMD registers, the conditions for which
> have changed subtly from kernel release to kernel release. Usually the
> pattern is to check for may_use_simd() and then fallback to using
> something slower in the unlikely case SIMD registers aren't available.
> So, this patch fixes up i915's accelerated memcpy routines to fallback
> to boring memcpy if may_use_simd() is false.

Err, why does i915 implements its own uncached memcpy instead of relying
on core functionality to start with?