From: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>
To: Ashutosh Dixit <ashutosh.dixit@intel.com>,
intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 5/6] drm/i915/mtl: PERF_LIMIT_REASONS changes for MTL
Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2022 12:30:45 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87h71mb22i.fsf@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220902235302.1112388-6-ashutosh.dixit@intel.com>
On Fri, 02 Sep 2022, Ashutosh Dixit <ashutosh.dixit@intel.com> wrote:
> PERF_LIMIT_REASONS register for MTL media gt is different now.
>
> Cc: Badal Nilawar <badal.nilawar@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Ashutosh Dixit <ashutosh.dixit@intel.com>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt.h | 8 ++++++++
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt_pm_debugfs.c | 4 ++--
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt_sysfs_pm.c | 6 +++---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h | 1 +
> 4 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt.h
> index c9a359f35d0f..7286d47113ee 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt.h
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt.h
> @@ -9,6 +9,7 @@
> #include "intel_engine_types.h"
> #include "intel_gt_types.h"
> #include "intel_reset.h"
> +#include "i915_reg.h"
>
> struct drm_i915_private;
> struct drm_printer;
> @@ -86,6 +87,13 @@ static inline bool intel_gt_is_wedged(const struct intel_gt *gt)
> return unlikely(test_bit(I915_WEDGED, >->reset.flags));
> }
>
> +static inline
> +i915_reg_t intel_gt_perf_limit_reasons_reg(struct intel_gt *gt)
> +{
> + return gt->type == GT_MEDIA ?
> + MTL_MEDIA_PERF_LIMIT_REASONS : GT0_PERF_LIMIT_REASONS;
> +}
Nowadays, I pretty much think of everything from the standpoint of
setting the example for future changes. Is this what we want people to
copy? Because that's what we do, look for examples for what we want to
achieve, and emulate.
Do we want this to be duplicated for other registers? Choose register
offset based on platform/engine/fusing/whatever parameter? Is this a
register definition that should be in a _regs.h file?
I don't know.
I've also grown to dislike static inlines a lot, and this one's the
worst because it actually can't be static inline because its passed as a
function pointer.
BR,
Jani.
> +
> int intel_gt_probe_all(struct drm_i915_private *i915);
> int intel_gt_tiles_init(struct drm_i915_private *i915);
> void intel_gt_release_all(struct drm_i915_private *i915);
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt_pm_debugfs.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt_pm_debugfs.c
> index 5c95cba5e5df..fe0091f953c1 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt_pm_debugfs.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt_pm_debugfs.c
> @@ -661,7 +661,7 @@ static int perf_limit_reasons_get(void *data, u64 *val)
> intel_wakeref_t wakeref;
>
> with_intel_runtime_pm(gt->uncore->rpm, wakeref)
> - *val = intel_uncore_read(gt->uncore, GT0_PERF_LIMIT_REASONS);
> + *val = intel_uncore_read(gt->uncore, intel_gt_perf_limit_reasons_reg(gt));
>
> return 0;
> }
> @@ -673,7 +673,7 @@ static int perf_limit_reasons_clear(void *data, u64 val)
>
> /* Clear the upper 16 log bits, the lower 16 status bits are read-only */
> with_intel_runtime_pm(gt->uncore->rpm, wakeref)
> - intel_uncore_rmw(gt->uncore, GT0_PERF_LIMIT_REASONS,
> + intel_uncore_rmw(gt->uncore, intel_gt_perf_limit_reasons_reg(gt),
> GT0_PERF_LIMIT_REASONS_LOG_MASK, 0);
>
> return 0;
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt_sysfs_pm.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt_sysfs_pm.c
> index e066cc33d9f2..54deae45d81f 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt_sysfs_pm.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt_sysfs_pm.c
> @@ -510,7 +510,7 @@ struct intel_gt_bool_throttle_attr {
> struct attribute attr;
> ssize_t (*show)(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute *attr,
> char *buf);
> - i915_reg_t reg32;
> + i915_reg_t (*reg32)(struct intel_gt *gt);
> u32 mask;
> };
>
> @@ -521,7 +521,7 @@ static ssize_t throttle_reason_bool_show(struct device *dev,
> struct intel_gt *gt = intel_gt_sysfs_get_drvdata(dev, attr->attr.name);
> struct intel_gt_bool_throttle_attr *t_attr =
> (struct intel_gt_bool_throttle_attr *) attr;
> - bool val = rps_read_mask_mmio(>->rps, t_attr->reg32, t_attr->mask);
> + bool val = rps_read_mask_mmio(>->rps, t_attr->reg32(gt), t_attr->mask);
>
> return sysfs_emit(buff, "%u\n", val);
> }
> @@ -530,7 +530,7 @@ static ssize_t throttle_reason_bool_show(struct device *dev,
> struct intel_gt_bool_throttle_attr attr_##sysfs_func__ = { \
> .attr = { .name = __stringify(sysfs_func__), .mode = 0444 }, \
> .show = throttle_reason_bool_show, \
> - .reg32 = GT0_PERF_LIMIT_REASONS, \
> + .reg32 = intel_gt_perf_limit_reasons_reg, \
> .mask = mask__, \
> }
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h
> index 10126995e1f6..06d555321651 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h
> @@ -1803,6 +1803,7 @@
> #define POWER_LIMIT_1_MASK REG_BIT(11)
> #define POWER_LIMIT_2_MASK REG_BIT(12)
> #define GT0_PERF_LIMIT_REASONS_LOG_MASK REG_GENMASK(31, 16)
> +#define MTL_MEDIA_PERF_LIMIT_REASONS _MMIO(0x138030)
>
> #define CHV_CLK_CTL1 _MMIO(0x101100)
> #define VLV_CLK_CTL2 _MMIO(0x101104)
--
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-09-05 9:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-09-02 23:52 [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 0/6] i915: freq caps and perf_limit_reasons changes for MTL Ashutosh Dixit
2022-09-02 23:52 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/6] drm/i915: Prepare more multi-GT initialization Ashutosh Dixit
2022-09-06 14:07 ` Rodrigo Vivi
2022-09-06 15:13 ` Dixit, Ashutosh
2022-09-02 23:52 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/6] drm/i915: Rename and expose common GT early init routine Ashutosh Dixit
2022-09-02 23:52 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 3/6] drm/i915/xelpmp: Expose media as another GT Ashutosh Dixit
2022-09-05 9:11 ` Jani Nikula
2022-09-06 15:14 ` Dixit, Ashutosh
2022-09-02 23:53 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 4/6] drm/i915/debugfs: Add perf_limit_reasons in debugfs Ashutosh Dixit
2022-09-06 14:13 ` Rodrigo Vivi
2022-09-07 7:31 ` Dixit, Ashutosh
2022-09-08 5:28 ` Dixit, Ashutosh
2022-09-02 23:53 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 5/6] drm/i915/mtl: PERF_LIMIT_REASONS changes for MTL Ashutosh Dixit
2022-09-05 9:30 ` Jani Nikula [this message]
2022-09-08 5:27 ` Dixit, Ashutosh
2022-09-02 23:53 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 6/6] drm/i915/rps: Freq caps " Ashutosh Dixit
2022-09-05 9:40 ` Jani Nikula
2022-09-08 5:26 ` Dixit, Ashutosh
2022-09-03 0:22 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.CHECKPATCH: warning for i915: freq caps and perf_limit_reasons changes " Patchwork
2022-09-03 0:22 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.SPARSE: " Patchwork
2022-09-03 0:33 ` [Intel-gfx] ✓ Fi.CI.BAT: success " Patchwork
2022-09-03 2:24 ` [Intel-gfx] ✓ Fi.CI.IGT: " Patchwork
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=87h71mb22i.fsf@intel.com \
--to=jani.nikula@linux.intel.com \
--cc=ashutosh.dixit@intel.com \
--cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
/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