From: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>
To: Gustavo Sousa <gustavo.sousa@intel.com>,
intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org
Cc: Luca Coelho <luciano.coelho@intel.com>,
Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/13] drm/i915/dmc_wl: Use non-sleeping variant of MMIO wait
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2024 12:34:44 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87wmi0v5u3.fsf@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20241021222744.294371-3-gustavo.sousa@intel.com>
On Mon, 21 Oct 2024, Gustavo Sousa <gustavo.sousa@intel.com> wrote:
> Some display MMIO transactions for offsets in the range that requires
> the DMC wakelock happen in atomic context (this has been confirmed
> during tests on PTL). That means that we need to use a non-sleeping
> variant of MMIO waiting function.
>
> Implement __intel_de_wait_for_register_atomic_nowl() and use it when
> waiting for acknowledgment of acquire/release.
>
> Signed-off-by: Gustavo Sousa <gustavo.sousa@intel.com>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_de.h | 11 +++++++++++
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dmc_wl.c | 20 ++++++++++++--------
> 2 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_de.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_de.h
> index e017cd4a8168..4116783a62dd 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_de.h
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_de.h
> @@ -121,6 +121,17 @@ ____intel_de_wait_for_register_nowl(struct intel_display *display,
> }
> #define __intel_de_wait_for_register_nowl(p,...) ____intel_de_wait_for_register_nowl(__to_intel_display(p), __VA_ARGS__)
>
> +static inline int
> +____intel_de_wait_for_register_atomic_nowl(struct intel_display *display,
> + i915_reg_t reg,
> + u32 mask, u32 value,
> + unsigned int fast_timeout_us)
> +{
> + return __intel_wait_for_register(__to_uncore(display), reg, mask,
> + value, fast_timeout_us, 0, NULL);
> +}
> +#define __intel_de_wait_for_register_atomic_nowl(p,...) ____intel_de_wait_for_register_atomic_nowl(__to_intel_display(p), __VA_ARGS__)
> +
There's no need to add the wrapper when all users pass struct
intel_display. And we don't want new users that pass i915.
And why are we adding new stuff and users with double underscores?
> static inline int
> __intel_de_wait(struct intel_display *display, i915_reg_t reg,
> u32 mask, u32 value, unsigned int timeout)
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dmc_wl.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dmc_wl.c
> index 5634ff07269d..8056a3c8666c 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dmc_wl.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dmc_wl.c
> @@ -39,7 +39,7 @@
> * potential future use.
> */
>
> -#define DMC_WAKELOCK_CTL_TIMEOUT 5
> +#define DMC_WAKELOCK_CTL_TIMEOUT_US 5000
> #define DMC_WAKELOCK_HOLD_TIME 50
>
> struct intel_dmc_wl_range {
> @@ -78,9 +78,9 @@ static void intel_dmc_wl_work(struct work_struct *work)
>
> __intel_de_rmw_nowl(display, DMC_WAKELOCK1_CTL, DMC_WAKELOCK_CTL_REQ, 0);
>
> - if (__intel_de_wait_for_register_nowl(display, DMC_WAKELOCK1_CTL,
> - DMC_WAKELOCK_CTL_ACK, 0,
> - DMC_WAKELOCK_CTL_TIMEOUT)) {
> + if (__intel_de_wait_for_register_atomic_nowl(display, DMC_WAKELOCK1_CTL,
> + DMC_WAKELOCK_CTL_ACK, 0,
> + DMC_WAKELOCK_CTL_TIMEOUT_US)) {
> WARN_RATELIMIT(1, "DMC wakelock release timed out");
> goto out_unlock;
> }
> @@ -216,10 +216,14 @@ void intel_dmc_wl_get(struct intel_display *display, i915_reg_t reg)
> __intel_de_rmw_nowl(display, DMC_WAKELOCK1_CTL, 0,
> DMC_WAKELOCK_CTL_REQ);
>
> - if (__intel_de_wait_for_register_nowl(display, DMC_WAKELOCK1_CTL,
> - DMC_WAKELOCK_CTL_ACK,
> - DMC_WAKELOCK_CTL_ACK,
> - DMC_WAKELOCK_CTL_TIMEOUT)) {
> + /*
> + * We need to use the atomic variant of the waiting routine
> + * because the DMC wakelock is also taken in atomic context.
> + */
> + if (__intel_de_wait_for_register_atomic_nowl(display, DMC_WAKELOCK1_CTL,
> + DMC_WAKELOCK_CTL_ACK,
> + DMC_WAKELOCK_CTL_ACK,
> + DMC_WAKELOCK_CTL_TIMEOUT_US)) {
> WARN_RATELIMIT(1, "DMC wakelock ack timed out");
> goto out_unlock;
> }
--
Jani Nikula, Intel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-10-22 9:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 55+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-10-21 22:27 [PATCH 00/13] drm/i915/dmc_wl: Fixes and enablement for Xe3_LPD Gustavo Sousa
2024-10-21 22:27 ` [PATCH 01/13] drm/xe: Mimic i915 behavior for non-sleeping MMIO wait Gustavo Sousa
2024-11-01 10:57 ` Luca Coelho
2024-11-05 12:17 ` Gustavo Sousa
2024-10-21 22:27 ` [PATCH 02/13] drm/i915/dmc_wl: Use non-sleeping variant of " Gustavo Sousa
2024-10-22 9:34 ` Jani Nikula [this message]
2024-10-22 10:55 ` Gustavo Sousa
2024-11-01 11:04 ` Luca Coelho
2024-11-01 11:18 ` Luca Coelho
2024-10-21 22:27 ` [PATCH 03/13] drm/i915/dmc_wl: Check for non-zero refcount in release work Gustavo Sousa
2024-11-01 11:48 ` Luca Coelho
2024-10-21 22:27 ` [PATCH 04/13] drm/i915/dmc_wl: Get wakelock when disabling dynamic DC states Gustavo Sousa
2024-11-01 12:24 ` Luca Coelho
2024-11-05 12:44 ` Gustavo Sousa
2024-11-06 11:37 ` Luca Coelho
2024-10-21 22:27 ` [PATCH 05/13] drm/i915/dmc_wl: Use sentinel item for range tables Gustavo Sousa
2024-11-01 12:25 ` Luca Coelho
2024-10-21 22:27 ` [PATCH 06/13] drm/i915/dmc_wl: Extract intel_dmc_wl_addr_in_range() Gustavo Sousa
2024-10-21 22:27 ` [PATCH 07/13] drm/i915/dmc_wl: Check ranges specific to DC states Gustavo Sousa
2024-10-22 8:03 ` Jani Nikula
2024-10-22 11:06 ` Gustavo Sousa
2024-11-05 19:54 ` Gustavo Sousa
2024-10-22 8:03 ` Jani Nikula
2024-10-22 11:10 ` Gustavo Sousa
2024-10-22 11:14 ` Gustavo Sousa
2024-11-01 12:51 ` Luca Coelho
2024-11-05 13:00 ` Gustavo Sousa
2024-11-06 11:47 ` Luca Coelho
2024-11-06 13:56 ` Gustavo Sousa
2024-10-21 22:27 ` [PATCH 08/13] drm/i915/dmc_wl: Allow simpler syntax for single reg in range tables Gustavo Sousa
2024-11-01 12:58 ` Luca Coelho
2024-11-05 13:42 ` Gustavo Sousa
2024-11-06 12:23 ` Luca Coelho
2024-11-06 12:29 ` Gustavo Sousa
2024-11-06 12:35 ` Luca Coelho
2024-10-21 22:27 ` [PATCH 09/13] drm/i915/dmc_wl: Deal with existing references when disabling Gustavo Sousa
2024-11-01 14:17 ` Luca Coelho
2024-10-21 22:27 ` [PATCH 10/13] drm/i915/dmc_wl: Couple enable/disable with dynamic DC states Gustavo Sousa
2024-11-01 14:19 ` Luca Coelho
2024-10-21 22:27 ` [PATCH 11/13] drm/i915/dmc_wl: Add and use HAS_DMC_WAKELOCK() Gustavo Sousa
2024-10-22 9:37 ` Jani Nikula
2024-10-22 11:03 ` Gustavo Sousa
2024-11-05 13:56 ` Gustavo Sousa
2024-11-06 9:25 ` Jani Nikula
2024-11-06 13:24 ` Gustavo Sousa
2024-10-21 22:27 ` [PATCH 12/13] drm/i915/dmc_wl: Sanitize enable_dmc_wl according to hardware support Gustavo Sousa
2024-11-01 14:25 ` Luca Coelho
2024-10-21 22:27 ` [PATCH 13/13] drm/i915/xe3lpd: Use DMC wakelock by default Gustavo Sousa
2024-11-01 14:27 ` Luca Coelho
2024-11-05 13:46 ` Gustavo Sousa
2024-11-05 21:12 ` Gustavo Sousa
2024-11-06 12:27 ` Luca Coelho
2024-10-21 22:54 ` ✗ Fi.CI.CHECKPATCH: warning for drm/i915/dmc_wl: Fixes and enablement for Xe3_LPD Patchwork
2024-10-21 22:54 ` ✗ Fi.CI.SPARSE: " Patchwork
2024-10-21 23:44 ` ✗ Fi.CI.BAT: failure " 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=87wmi0v5u3.fsf@intel.com \
--to=jani.nikula@linux.intel.com \
--cc=gustavo.sousa@intel.com \
--cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=luciano.coelho@intel.com \
--cc=rodrigo.vivi@intel.com \
/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