Re: [PATCH 6/7] drm/amdgpu/gfxhub: Respect noretry flag for retry faults on GFX12.1

["Timur Kristóf" <timur.kristof@gmail.com>]

On Tuesday, June 16, 2026 10:09:53 AM Central European Summer Time Tvrtko 
Ursulin wrote:
> On 25/05/2026 12:45, Timur Kristóf wrote:
> > When retry faults are disabled (amdgpu.noretry=1),
> > the ENABLE_RETRY_FAULT_INTERRUPT bit should be programmed to 0.
> > 
> > Note that retry faults are enabled by default on GFX12.1
> > so this just fixes the case when they are explicitly disabled.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Timur Kristóf <timur.kristof@gmail.com>
> > ---
> > 
> >   drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/gfxhub_v12_1.c | 2 +-
> >   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/gfxhub_v12_1.c
> > b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/gfxhub_v12_1.c index
> > 4c2fd1e6616e..d2edfe037da8 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/gfxhub_v12_1.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/gfxhub_v12_1.c
> > @@ -243,7 +243,7 @@ static void
> > gfxhub_v12_1_xcc_init_system_aperture_regs(struct amdgpu_device *ade> 
> >   		tmp = REG_SET_FIELD(tmp, 
GCVM_L2_PROTECTION_FAULT_CNTL2,
> >   		
> >   				    
ACTIVE_PAGE_MIGRATION_PTE_READ_RETRY, 1);
> >   		
> >   		tmp = REG_SET_FIELD(tmp, 
GCVM_L2_PROTECTION_FAULT_CNTL2,
> > 
> > -				    ENABLE_RETRY_FAULT_INTERRUPT, 
0x1);
> > +				    ENABLE_RETRY_FAULT_INTERRUPT, 
!adev->gmc.noretry);
> > 
> >   		WREG32_SOC15(GC, GET_INST(GC, i),
> >   		
> >   			     regGCVM_L2_PROTECTION_FAULT_CNTL2, 
tmp);
> >   	
> >   	}
> 
> If I look at 6f894c92490b ("drm/amdgpu: Enable retry faults for GFX
> 12.1") which added this code, it also touched
> gfxhub_v12_1_xcc_setup_vmid_config():
> 
>      tmp = REG_SET_FIELD(tmp, GCVM_CONTEXT1_CNTL,
>                          RETRY_PERMISSION_OR_INVALID_PAGE_FAULT,
> -                       !amdgpu_noretry);
> +                       1);
> 
> Should that be changed as well?
> 

I personally don't have a GFX12.1 GPU so I have no way to verify how that 
works, which is why I try to avoid changing it unless it's pretty obvious that 
the upstream code is wrong.

Can you elaborate on what you are suggesting exactly?

Thanks,
Timur