Re: [RFC 13/28] drm/i915: Convert i915_gem_init_hw to intel_gt

Chris Wilson
2019-06-14T15:10:13Z

Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2019-06-14 16:00:28)
>
> On 14/06/2019 10:41, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2019-06-14 10:34:06)
> >>
> >> On 13/06/2019 17:30, Chris Wilson wrote:
> >>> Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2019-06-13 17:11:43)
> >>>>
> >>>> On 13/06/2019 14:59, Chris Wilson wrote:
> >>>>> Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2019-06-13 14:35:24)
> >>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
> >>>>>> index e54cd30534dc..b6f450e782e7 100644
> >>>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
> >>>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
> >>>>>> @@ -1234,28 +1234,32 @@ static void init_unused_rings(struct intel_gt *gt)
> >>>>>> }
> >>>>>> }
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> -int i915_gem_init_hw(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
> >>>>>> +static int init_hw(struct intel_gt *gt)
> >>>>>> {
> >>>>>> + struct drm_i915_private *i915 = gt->i915;
> >>>>>> + struct intel_uncore *uncore = gt->uncore;
> >>>>>> int ret;
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> - dev_priv->gt.last_init_time = ktime_get();
> >>>>>> + gt->last_init_time = ktime_get();
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> /* Double layer security blanket, see i915_gem_init() */
> >>>>>> - intel_uncore_forcewake_get(&dev_priv->uncore, FORCEWAKE_ALL);
> >>>>>> + intel_uncore_forcewake_get(uncore, FORCEWAKE_ALL);
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> - if (HAS_EDRAM(dev_priv) && INTEL_GEN(dev_priv) < 9)
> >>>>>> - I915_WRITE(HSW_IDICR, I915_READ(HSW_IDICR) | IDIHASHMSK(0xf));
> >>>>>> + if (HAS_EDRAM(i915) && INTEL_GEN(i915) < 9)
> >>>>>> + intel_uncore_rmw(uncore, HSW_IDICR, 0, IDIHASHMSK(0xf));
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> - if (IS_HASWELL(dev_priv))
> >>>>>> - I915_WRITE(MI_PREDICATE_RESULT_2, IS_HSW_GT3(dev_priv) ?
> >>>>>> - LOWER_SLICE_ENABLED : LOWER_SLICE_DISABLED);
> >>>>>> + if (IS_HASWELL(i915))
> >>>>>> + intel_uncore_write(uncore,
> >>>>>> + MI_PREDICATE_RESULT_2,
> >>>>>> + IS_HSW_GT3(i915) ?
> >>>>>> + LOWER_SLICE_ENABLED : LOWER_SLICE_DISABLED);
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> /* Apply the GT workarounds... */
> >>>>>> - intel_gt_apply_workarounds(&dev_priv->gt);
> >>>>>> + intel_gt_apply_workarounds(gt);
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Would it be worth moving the above mmio into workarounds? Whilst you are
> >>>>> doing some spring cleaning :)
> >>>>
> >>>> To GT workarounds? Are the above two workarounds? Do they have an
> >>>> official designation?
> >>>
> >>> To intel_gt_workarounds_apply, I'm sure you can find something ;)
> >>
> >> Having looked up the docs for HSW_IDCR and MI_PREDICATE_RESULT_2,
> >> neither of the programming looks like workarounds but normal device init
> >> to me. As such I don't see how it would be appropriate to move them into
> >> workarounds.
> >
> > Where they are is definitely not where they should be. I'm sure I've
> > complained about this since they were put there. And normal device init ==
> > workarounds, does it not? It is just a list of registers that need to be
> > programmed to default values, where those default values were decided
> > upon after the fact.
>
> Well we could argue.. :) I see stuff in intel_workarounds as having
> WaXXXX names, give or take. So I prefer to leave this here for now.

Give or take the fake Wa names made up to cover normal device init :-p
-Chris