From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: bdw expands ACTHD to 64bit
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 16:56:57 +0000
Message-ID: <532B1DD9.8010008@linux.intel.com>
References: <1395266088-24536-1-git-send-email-chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org>
Received: from mga02.intel.com (mga02.intel.com [134.134.136.20])
 by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97C9B6E143
 for <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>; Thu, 20 Mar 2014 09:56:59 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <1395266088-24536-1-git-send-email-chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/options/intel-gfx>,
 <mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/intel-gfx>
List-Post: <mailto:intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>
List-Help: <mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx>,
 <mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org
Sender: "Intel-gfx" <intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org>
To: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>, intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
Cc: Ben Widawsky <benjamin.widawsky@intel.com>
List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org


On 03/19/2014 09:54 PM, Chris Wilson wrote:
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.c
> index 7a01911c16f8..a6ceb2c6f36d 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.c
> @@ -417,13 +417,19 @@ static void ring_write_tail(struct intel_ring_buffer *ring,
>   	I915_WRITE_TAIL(ring, value);
>   }
>
> -u32 intel_ring_get_active_head(struct intel_ring_buffer *ring)
> +u64 intel_ring_get_active_head(struct intel_ring_buffer *ring)
>   {
>   	drm_i915_private_t *dev_priv = ring->dev->dev_private;
> -	u32 acthd_reg = INTEL_INFO(ring->dev)->gen >= 4 ?
> -			RING_ACTHD(ring->mmio_base) : ACTHD;
>
> -	return I915_READ(acthd_reg);
> +	u32 reg = (INTEL_INFO(ring->dev)->gen >= 4 ?
> +		   RING_ACTHD(ring->mmio_base) : ACTHD);
> +	u64 acthd;
> +
> +	acthd = I915_READ(reg);
> +	if (INTEL_INFO(ring->dev)->gen >= 8)
> +		acthd |= (u64)I915_READ(RING_ACTHD_UDW(ring->mmio_base)) << 32;
> +
> +	return acthd;
>   }

Can it happen, and does anyone care, for a low dword to wrap so instead 
of say, 0x00010000, this function falsely returns 0x0001ffff ?

Tvrtko