From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com>
To: John.C.Harrison@Intel.com, Intel-GFX@Lists.FreeDesktop.Org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] drm/i915: Implement read-only support in whitelist selftest
Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2019 11:10:29 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <19ca71e0-2de2-3f61-67cf-6f539a0f81af@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190703020604.20369-3-John.C.Harrison@Intel.com>
On 03/07/2019 03:06, John.C.Harrison@Intel.com wrote:
> From: John Harrison <John.C.Harrison@Intel.com>
>
> Newer hardware supports extra feature in the whitelist registers. This
> patch updates the selftest to test that entries marked as read only
> are actually read only.
>
> Signed-off-by: John Harrison <John.C.Harrison@Intel.com>
> CC: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>
I think I gave my r-b for this in the last round.
Reviewed-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>
Regards,
Tvrtko
P.S. I don't have a strong opinion on whether to have it like it is, or
to do what Chris suggested and to cheat with rsvd = 0. Both are a bit
difficult to figure out when reviewing. 0xffffffff solution is also
misleading in a way that the value is only used in a log message for no
real effect. So I guess this means slight preference to rsvd = 0
solution after all.
> ---
> .../gpu/drm/i915/gt/selftest_workarounds.c | 43 +++++++++++++------
> 1 file changed, 31 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/selftest_workarounds.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/selftest_workarounds.c
> index f8151d5946c8..5cd2b17105ba 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/selftest_workarounds.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/selftest_workarounds.c
> @@ -482,12 +482,12 @@ static int check_dirty_whitelist(struct i915_gem_context *ctx,
> u32 srm, lrm, rsvd;
> u32 expect;
> int idx;
> + bool ro_reg;
>
> if (wo_register(engine, reg))
> continue;
>
> - if (ro_register(reg))
> - continue;
> + ro_reg = ro_register(reg);
>
> srm = MI_STORE_REGISTER_MEM;
> lrm = MI_LOAD_REGISTER_MEM;
> @@ -588,24 +588,37 @@ static int check_dirty_whitelist(struct i915_gem_context *ctx,
> }
>
> GEM_BUG_ON(values[ARRAY_SIZE(values) - 1] != 0xffffffff);
> - rsvd = results[ARRAY_SIZE(values)]; /* detect write masking */
> - if (!rsvd) {
> - pr_err("%s: Unable to write to whitelisted register %x\n",
> - engine->name, reg);
> - err = -EINVAL;
> - goto out_unpin;
> + if (ro_reg) {
> + rsvd = 0xFFFFFFFF;
> + } else {
> + /* detect write masking */
> + rsvd = results[ARRAY_SIZE(values)];
> + if (!rsvd) {
> + pr_err("%s: Unable to write to whitelisted register %x\n",
> + engine->name, reg);
> + err = -EINVAL;
> + goto out_unpin;
> + }
> }
>
> expect = results[0];
> idx = 1;
> for (v = 0; v < ARRAY_SIZE(values); v++) {
> - expect = reg_write(expect, values[v], rsvd);
> + if (ro_reg)
> + expect = results[0];
> + else
> + expect = reg_write(expect, values[v], rsvd);
> +
> if (results[idx] != expect)
> err++;
> idx++;
> }
> for (v = 0; v < ARRAY_SIZE(values); v++) {
> - expect = reg_write(expect, ~values[v], rsvd);
> + if (ro_reg)
> + expect = results[0];
> + else
> + expect = reg_write(expect, ~values[v], rsvd);
> +
> if (results[idx] != expect)
> err++;
> idx++;
> @@ -622,7 +635,10 @@ static int check_dirty_whitelist(struct i915_gem_context *ctx,
> for (v = 0; v < ARRAY_SIZE(values); v++) {
> u32 w = values[v];
>
> - expect = reg_write(expect, w, rsvd);
> + if (ro_reg)
> + expect = results[0];
> + else
> + expect = reg_write(expect, w, rsvd);
> pr_info("Wrote %08x, read %08x, expect %08x\n",
> w, results[idx], expect);
> idx++;
> @@ -630,7 +646,10 @@ static int check_dirty_whitelist(struct i915_gem_context *ctx,
> for (v = 0; v < ARRAY_SIZE(values); v++) {
> u32 w = ~values[v];
>
> - expect = reg_write(expect, w, rsvd);
> + if (ro_reg)
> + expect = results[0];
> + else
> + expect = reg_write(expect, w, rsvd);
> pr_info("Wrote %08x, read %08x, expect %08x\n",
> w, results[idx], expect);
> idx++;
>
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-07-04 10:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-07-03 2:06 [PATCH 0/2] Improve whitelist selftest for read-only registers John.C.Harrison
2019-07-03 2:06 ` [PATCH 1/2] drm/i915: Add test for invalid flag bits in whitelist entries John.C.Harrison
2019-07-03 13:50 ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2019-07-03 2:06 ` [PATCH 2/2] drm/i915: Implement read-only support in whitelist selftest John.C.Harrison
2019-07-03 8:32 ` Chris Wilson
2019-07-03 19:43 ` John Harrison
2019-07-10 8:21 ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2019-07-04 10:10 ` Tvrtko Ursulin [this message]
2019-07-03 2:43 ` ✓ Fi.CI.BAT: success for Improve whitelist selftest for read-only registers Patchwork
2019-07-03 7:50 ` [PATCH 3/3] drm/i915: Add engine name to workaround debug print John.C.Harrison
2019-07-03 13:53 ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2019-07-03 9:36 ` ✓ Fi.CI.BAT: success for Improve whitelist selftest for read-only registers Patchwork
2019-07-03 23:48 ` ✓ Fi.CI.IGT: " Patchwork
2019-07-04 2:31 ` Patchwork
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=19ca71e0-2de2-3f61-67cf-6f539a0f81af@linux.intel.com \
--to=tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com \
--cc=Intel-GFX@Lists.FreeDesktop.Org \
--cc=John.C.Harrison@Intel.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