From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Siluvery, Arun" <arun.siluvery@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: WAs in init_clock_gating?
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 13:41:54 +0100
Message-ID: <53D0FF12.80306@linux.intel.com>
References: <92648605EABDA246B775AAB04C95A7A3137EB57C@IRSMSX103.ger.corp.intel.com>
 <20140707205008.GD17271@phenom.ffwll.local>
 <20140707141641.44e7c407@jbarnes-desktop>
 <CAKMK7uGW3hOfe+KMtN7WCPUyRPqTZi3VYBBgB0x3vOFxmD7tZw@mail.gmail.com>
 <53D0E33F.4090705@linux.intel.com> <20140724123319.GA4747@phenom.ffwll.local>
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 mga01.intel.com (mga01.intel.com [192.55.52.88])
 by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE96A6E2CD
 for <Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>; Thu, 24 Jul 2014 05:44:37 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20140724123319.GA4747@phenom.ffwll.local>
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: Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
Cc: "Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org" <Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>
List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org

On 24/07/2014 13:33, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 11:43:11AM +0100, Siluvery, Arun wrote:
>> On 07/07/2014 22:24, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 11:16 PM, Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org> wrote:
>>>> I don't think it's unreasonable to use a macro that checks a global
>>>> list for whether to apply a given WA.  They'll be scattered all over,
>>>> but at least it'll be easy to see:
>>>>    1) whether we implement a given workaround
>>>> and
>>>>    2) which platforms & steppings it applies to based on the table.
>>>
>>> Oh, I agree it's not unreasonable. But I'm kinda begging for the
>>> simple solution since months (years?) and haven't gotten it, while
>>> still getting a steady stream of bug reports and issues. So I've
>>> readjusted my expectations ;-)
>>>
>>> If someone delivers the real deal I'll certainly won't reject it.
>>> -Daniel
>>>
>>
>> I am moving bdw workarounds from clock_gating fn to render ring init fn and
>> testing this before and after gpu reset.
>
> Testing = with an igt? Because I'll ask for this ;-)

Yes, triggering gpu reset with igt, at the moment the test fails because 
of this register.
>
>> One of the workaround is to disable STC optimization, reg CACHE_MODE_1 bit6
>> set to 1. I observed that some times after boot this gets reset to 0
>> (default value) even after applying workarounds; other than workarounds no
>> one else seems to write to this function.
>> Any ideas about this behaviour?
>
> gpu init tends to do this, since clock_gating is run before that.

thanks, I will take a look.

regards
Arun

> -Daniel
>