From: Imre Deak <imre.deak@intel.com>
To: Paulo Zanoni <przanoni@gmail.com>
Cc: Intel Graphics Development <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: run intel_uncore_early_sanitize earlier on resume
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 19:04:23 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1413475463.11611.13.camel@ideak-mobl> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+gsUGQxHyuimyd22ao4MA+VGq8o8N7ffMeNNJtObztAkKc0_w@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, 2014-10-15 at 16:07 -0300, Paulo Zanoni wrote:
> 2014-10-10 8:25 GMT-03:00 Imre Deak <imre.deak@intel.com>:
> > On Thu, 2014-10-09 at 14:46 -0300, Paulo Zanoni wrote:
> >> From: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni@intel.com>
> >>
> >> As far as I understand, intel_uncore_early_sanitize() was supposed to
> >> be ran before any register access, but currently
> >> intel_resume_prepare() is ran earlier, and it does register
> >> access. I don't think it should be safe to be calling
> >> I915_{READ,WRITE} without calling intel_uncore_early_sanitize() first.
> >>
> >> One of the problems we currently have is that when we suspend/resume
> >> BDW, the FPGA_DBG_RM_NOCLAIM bit becomes 1, so we end up printing an
> >> "unclaimed register" message on resume, but this message doesn't
> >> really seem to have been triggered by our driver or user space, since
> >> the bit was not there before suspending, and gets there just after
> >> resuming, before any of our own register accesses. So calling
> >> intel_uncore_early_sanitize() as a first thing will allow us to stop
> >> printing the error message, fixing the "bug".
> >
> > One issue is that intel_uncore_early_sanitize() uses forcewake, which is
> > enabled only in prepare resume for VLV (vlv_allow_gt_wake()). Maybe
> > FPGA_DBG could be reset separately before the rest?
>
> It doesn't "use" forcewake, it calls intel_uncore_forcewake_reset().
Hm, right I only remembered that because of
"drm/i915: check for GT faults during S3 resume and S4 restore too"
on the mailing list, but it's not yet merged.
> Shouldn't we move the vlv code (e.g., vlv_allow_gt_wake()) to inside
> intel_uncore_forcewake_reset() instead?
>
> To my understanding, it doesn't make sense to call anything at all
> before intel_uncore_early_sanitize()...
On VLV we need to do the steps in the resume_prepare handler first. Also
we don't want to call vlv_allow_gt_wake() during driver init. But yes, I
see that for other platforms it makes sense to move
intel_uncore_early_sanitize() earlier. One way would be to call it from
resume_prepare for each platform at the proper place in case of system
resume.
> >
> >>
> >> Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
> >> Cc: Imre Deak <imre.deak@intel.com>
> >> Bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=83094
> >> Signed-off-by: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni@intel.com>
> >> ---
> >> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c | 2 +-
> >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>
> >> Maybe we need to move even more code up?
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c
> >> index a05a1d0..dffb173 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c
> >> @@ -665,11 +665,11 @@ static int i915_drm_thaw_early(struct drm_device *dev)
> >> struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = dev->dev_private;
> >> int ret;
> >>
> >> + intel_uncore_early_sanitize(dev, true);
> >> ret = intel_resume_prepare(dev_priv, false);
> >> if (ret)
> >> DRM_ERROR("Resume prepare failed: %d,Continuing resume\n", ret);
> >>
> >> - intel_uncore_early_sanitize(dev, true);
> >> intel_uncore_sanitize(dev);
> >> intel_power_domains_init_hw(dev_priv);
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
>
prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-10-16 16:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-10-09 17:46 [PATCH] drm/i915: run intel_uncore_early_sanitize earlier on resume Paulo Zanoni
2014-10-10 11:25 ` Imre Deak
2014-10-15 19:07 ` Paulo Zanoni
2014-10-16 16:04 ` Imre Deak [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1413475463.11611.13.camel@ideak-mobl \
--to=imre.deak@intel.com \
--cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=paulo.r.zanoni@intel.com \
--cc=przanoni@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox