Re: [PATCH v2 26/49] drm/i915/bxt: Add BXT support in gen8_irq functions

Imre Deak
2015-04-13T13:58:02Z

On ma, 2015-04-13 at 16:51 +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Apr 2015, Imre Deak <imre.deak@intel.com> wrote:
> > From: Shashank Sharma <shashank.sharma@intel.com>
> >
> > This patch adds conditional checks in gen8_irq functions
> > to support BXT. Most of the checks just look for PCH split
> > availability, and block the call to PCH interrupt functions if
> > not available.
> >
> > v2: (jani)
> > - drop redundant TODO comment about PCH IRQ flags on BXT
> > - check HAS_PCH_SPLIT instead of IS_BROXTON when handling PCH specific
> > IRQ events in gen8_irq_handler()
> > - check HAS_PCH_SPLIT before calling the function instead of a
> > corresponding early return within the called function for
> > ibx_irq_reset(), ibx_irq_pre_postinstall(), ibx_irq_postinstall()
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Satheeshakrishna M<satheeshakrishna.m@intel.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Damien Lespiau <damien.lespiau@intel.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Shashank Sharma <ppashank.sharma@intel.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Imre Deak <imre.deak@intel.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c | 21 ++++++++++++++-------
> > 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c
> > index b06364f..a185f44 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c
> > @@ -2297,7 +2297,8 @@ static irqreturn_t gen8_irq_handler(int irq, void *arg)
> > DRM_ERROR("The master control interrupt lied (DE PIPE)!\n");
> > }
> >
> > - if (!HAS_PCH_NOP(dev) && master_ctl & GEN8_DE_PCH_IRQ) {
> > + if (HAS_PCH_SPLIT(dev) && !HAS_PCH_NOP(dev) &&
> > + master_ctl & GEN8_DE_PCH_IRQ) {
> > /*
> > * FIXME(BDW): Assume for now that the new interrupt handling
> > * scheme also closed the SDE interrupt handling race we've seen
> > @@ -3073,7 +3074,8 @@ static void ironlake_irq_reset(struct drm_device *dev)
> >
> > gen5_gt_irq_reset(dev);
> >
> > - ibx_irq_reset(dev);
> > + if (HAS_PCH_SPLIT(dev))
> > + ibx_irq_reset(dev);
> > }
> >
> > static void vlv_display_irq_reset(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
> > @@ -3133,7 +3135,8 @@ static void gen8_irq_reset(struct drm_device *dev)
> > GEN5_IRQ_RESET(GEN8_DE_MISC_);
> > GEN5_IRQ_RESET(GEN8_PCU_);
> >
> > - ibx_irq_reset(dev);
> > + if (HAS_PCH_SPLIT(dev))
> > + ibx_irq_reset(dev);
> > }
> >
> > void gen8_irq_power_well_post_enable(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
> > @@ -3323,13 +3326,15 @@ static int ironlake_irq_postinstall(struct drm_device *dev)
> >
> > I915_WRITE(HWSTAM, 0xeffe);
> >
> > - ibx_irq_pre_postinstall(dev);
> > + if (HAS_PCH_SPLIT(dev))
> > + ibx_irq_pre_postinstall(dev);
> >
> > GEN5_IRQ_INIT(DE, dev_priv->irq_mask, display_mask | extra_mask);
> >
> > gen5_gt_irq_postinstall(dev);
> >
> > - ibx_irq_postinstall(dev);
> > + if (HAS_PCH_SPLIT(dev))
> > + ibx_irq_postinstall(dev);
>
> /me scratches head, we shouldn't ever call ironlake_irq_postinstall on
> bxt, should we? Did I miss something?

Nope, I just added the check blindly to all call sites. But here
HAS_PCH_SPLIT happens to be true of course, so yea it's not needed.

> With this hunk dropped, I think the patch looks good.
>
> BR,
> Jani.
>
>
> >
> > if (IS_IRONLAKE_M(dev)) {
> > /* Enable PCU event interrupts
> > @@ -3545,12 +3550,14 @@ static int gen8_irq_postinstall(struct drm_device *dev)
> > {
> > struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = dev->dev_private;
> >
> > - ibx_irq_pre_postinstall(dev);
> > + if (HAS_PCH_SPLIT(dev))
> > + ibx_irq_pre_postinstall(dev);
> >
> > gen8_gt_irq_postinstall(dev_priv);
> > gen8_de_irq_postinstall(dev_priv);
> >
> > - ibx_irq_postinstall(dev);
> > + if (HAS_PCH_SPLIT(dev))
> > + ibx_irq_postinstall(dev);
> >
> > I915_WRITE(GEN8_MASTER_IRQ, DE_MASTER_IRQ_CONTROL);
> > POSTING_READ(GEN8_MASTER_IRQ);
> > --
> > 1.9.1
> >