From: Ramalingam C <ramalingam.c@intel.com>
To: Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@intel.com>
Cc: Michel Thierry <michel.thierry@intel.com>,
intel-gfx <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] drm/i915/tgl: Implement Wa_1604555607
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2019 08:57:26 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20191122032726.GA27545@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20191121182909.g2qajp2nqtrirms4@ldmartin-desk1>
On 2019-11-21 at 10:29:09 -0800, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 04:42:31PM +0530, Ramalingam C wrote:
> > + /* Wa_1604555607:tgl */
> > + val = intel_uncore_read(engine->uncore, FF_MODE2);
> > + val &= ~FF_MODE2_TDS_TIMER_MASK;
> > + val |= FF_MODE2_TDS_TIMER_128;
> > + __wa_write_masked_or(wal, FF_MODE2, FF_MODE2_TDS_TIMER_MASK, val,
> > + IS_TGL_REVID(engine->i915, 0, TGL_REVID_A0) ? 0:
>
> isn't it broken until B0 rather than only on A0? I think we could just
> disable the read back for all revs and then selectively enable it
> for later.
Thought of excluding the verification when the new stepping comes in.
Hence excluded for existing stepping alone.
Even your suggestion sounds good to me. I will go with it. With a FIXME
Note to indicate that we need to enable for capable steppings.
-Ram
>
> Lucas De Marchi
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Ramalingam C <ramalingam.c@intel.com>
To: Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@intel.com>
Cc: Michel Thierry <michel.thierry@intel.com>,
intel-gfx <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/1] drm/i915/tgl: Implement Wa_1604555607
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2019 08:57:26 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20191122032726.GA27545@intel.com> (raw)
Message-ID: <20191122032726.vujt9wE6fhwGehPK70f5lRlkotTCYokKjc-uits1h0g@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20191121182909.g2qajp2nqtrirms4@ldmartin-desk1>
On 2019-11-21 at 10:29:09 -0800, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 04:42:31PM +0530, Ramalingam C wrote:
> > + /* Wa_1604555607:tgl */
> > + val = intel_uncore_read(engine->uncore, FF_MODE2);
> > + val &= ~FF_MODE2_TDS_TIMER_MASK;
> > + val |= FF_MODE2_TDS_TIMER_128;
> > + __wa_write_masked_or(wal, FF_MODE2, FF_MODE2_TDS_TIMER_MASK, val,
> > + IS_TGL_REVID(engine->i915, 0, TGL_REVID_A0) ? 0:
>
> isn't it broken until B0 rather than only on A0? I think we could just
> disable the read back for all revs and then selectively enable it
> for later.
Thought of excluding the verification when the new stepping comes in.
Hence excluded for existing stepping alone.
Even your suggestion sounds good to me. I will go with it. With a FIXME
Note to indicate that we need to enable for capable steppings.
-Ram
>
> Lucas De Marchi
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-11-22 3:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-11-21 10:12 [PATCH 0/1] Wa_1604555607 implementation and verification skip Ramalingam C
2019-11-21 10:12 ` [Intel-gfx] " Ramalingam C
2019-11-21 10:12 ` [PATCH 1/1] drm/i915/tgl: Implement Wa_1604555607 Ramalingam C
2019-11-21 10:12 ` [Intel-gfx] " Ramalingam C
2019-11-21 10:19 ` Chris Wilson
2019-11-21 10:19 ` [Intel-gfx] " Chris Wilson
2019-11-21 10:51 ` Ramalingam C
2019-11-21 10:51 ` [Intel-gfx] " Ramalingam C
2019-11-21 10:19 ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2019-11-21 10:19 ` [Intel-gfx] " Tvrtko Ursulin
2019-11-21 11:12 ` Ramalingam C
2019-11-21 11:12 ` [Intel-gfx] " Ramalingam C
2019-11-21 18:29 ` Lucas De Marchi
2019-11-21 18:29 ` [Intel-gfx] " Lucas De Marchi
2019-11-22 3:27 ` Ramalingam C [this message]
2019-11-22 3:27 ` Ramalingam C
2019-11-21 14:32 ` ✗ Fi.CI.CHECKPATCH: warning for Wa_1604555607 implementation and verification skip (rev5) Patchwork
2019-11-21 14:32 ` [Intel-gfx] " Patchwork
2019-11-21 15:03 ` ✓ Fi.CI.BAT: success " Patchwork
2019-11-21 15:03 ` [Intel-gfx] " Patchwork
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2019-11-22 4:02 [PATCH 0/1] Wa_1604555607 implementation and verification skip Ramalingam C
2019-11-22 4:02 ` [PATCH 1/1] drm/i915/tgl: Implement Wa_1604555607 Ramalingam C
2019-11-22 9:21 ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2019-11-22 9:29 ` Chris Wilson
2019-11-26 8:00 ` Ramalingam C
2019-11-26 9:38 ` Lucas De Marchi
2019-11-26 10:10 ` Ramalingam C
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=20191122032726.GA27545@intel.com \
--to=ramalingam.c@intel.com \
--cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=lucas.demarchi@intel.com \
--cc=michel.thierry@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