From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ben Widawsky Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] drm/i915: No need to put forcewake after a reset Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 09:59:55 -0800 Message-ID: <20140305175954.GC19373@bwidawsk.net> References: <1394035700-19630-1-git-send-email-mika.kuoppala@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail.bwidawsk.net (bwidawsk.net [166.78.191.112]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8116DFA89F for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 10:00:03 -0800 (PST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1394035700-19630-1-git-send-email-mika.kuoppala@intel.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org Errors-To: intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org To: Mika Kuoppala Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 06:08:18PM +0200, Mika Kuoppala wrote: > As we now have intel_uncore_forcewake_reset() no need > to do explicit put after reset. > > v2: rebase > > Signed-off-by: Mika Kuoppala > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.c | 19 ++++++++----------- > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.c > index 6ca24ac..00320fd 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.c > @@ -952,6 +952,7 @@ static int gen6_do_reset(struct drm_device *dev) > struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = dev->dev_private; > int ret; > unsigned long irqflags; > + u32 fw_engine = 0; > > /* Hold uncore.lock across reset to prevent any register access > * with forcewake not set correctly > @@ -971,25 +972,21 @@ static int gen6_do_reset(struct drm_device *dev) > > intel_uncore_forcewake_reset(dev); > > - /* If reset with a user forcewake, try to restore, otherwise turn it off */ > + /* If reset with a user forcewake, try to restore */ Technically with the introduction of the deferred forcewaker_ put, it's not just user forcewake that this restores. Wouldn't it be nice if we actually used something other than FORCEWAKE_KERNEL for debugfs? > if (IS_VALLEYVIEW(dev)) { > if (dev_priv->uncore.fw_rendercount) > - dev_priv->uncore.funcs.force_wake_get(dev_priv, FORCEWAKE_RENDER); > - else > - dev_priv->uncore.funcs.force_wake_put(dev_priv, FORCEWAKE_RENDER); > + fw_engine |= FORCEWAKE_RENDER; > > if (dev_priv->uncore.fw_mediacount) > - dev_priv->uncore.funcs.force_wake_get(dev_priv, FORCEWAKE_MEDIA); > - else > - dev_priv->uncore.funcs.force_wake_put(dev_priv, FORCEWAKE_MEDIA); > + fw_engine |= FORCEWAKE_MEDIA; > } else { > if (dev_priv->uncore.forcewake_count) > - dev_priv->uncore.funcs.force_wake_get(dev_priv, FORCEWAKE_ALL); > - else > - dev_priv->uncore.funcs.force_wake_put(dev_priv, FORCEWAKE_ALL); > + fw_engine = FORCEWAKE_ALL; > } P > > - /* Restore fifo count */ > + if (fw_engine) > + dev_priv->uncore.funcs.force_wake_get(dev_priv, fw_engine); > + > if (IS_GEN6(dev) || IS_GEN7(dev)) > dev_priv->uncore.fifo_count = > __raw_i915_read32(dev_priv, GTFIFOCTL) & I for one would not be opposed to a vlv_do_reset() and a gen8_do_reset(). I implemented such a thing at some point, but threw it away because I didn't actually have a vlv diff at the time. I had to re-review a lot of the uncore.lock stuff, but lgtm: Reviewed-by: Ben Widawsky -- Ben Widawsky, Intel Open Source Technology Center