From: Andrzej Hajda <andrzej.hajda@intel.com>
To: Paz Zcharya <pazz@chromium.org>, Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
Cc: Subrata Banik <subratabanik@google.com>,
Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>,
intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
Sean Paul <seanpaul@chromium.org>,
matthew.auld@intel.com, Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>,
Marcin Wojtas <mwojtas@chromium.org>,
Drew Davenport <ddavenport@chromium.org>,
David Airlie <airlied@gmail.com>,
Nirmoy Das <nirmoy.das@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915/display: Fix phys_base to be relative not absolute
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2023 13:06:17 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <8dd6f4da-dcc9-4ea3-8395-bf048b0dbc93@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ZVfw3ghfBLdHB7uk@google.com>
On 18.11.2023 00:01, Paz Zcharya wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 14, 2023 at 10:13:59PM -0500, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
>> On Sun, Nov 05, 2023 at 05:27:03PM +0000, Paz Zcharya wrote:
>>> Fix the value of variable `phys_base` to be the relative offset in
>>> stolen memory, and not the absolute offset of the GSM.
>>
>> to me it looks like the other way around. phys_base is the physical
>> base address for the frame_buffer. Setting it to zero doesn't seem
>> to make that relative. And also doesn't look right.
>>
>>>
>>> Currently, the value of `phys_base` is set to "Surface Base Address,"
>>> which in the case of Meter Lake is 0xfc00_0000.
>>
>> I don't believe this is a fixed value. IIRC this comes from the register
>> set by video bios, where the idea is to reuse the fb that was used so
>> far.
>>
>> With this in mind I don't understand how that could overflow. Maybe
>> the size of the stolen is not right? maybe the size? maybe different
>> memory region?
>>
>
> Hi Rodrigo, thanks for the great comments.
>
> Apologies for using a wrong/confusing terminology. I think 'phys_base'
> is supposed to be the offset in the GEM BO, where base (or
> "Surface Base Address") is supposed to be the GTT offset.
Since base is taken from PLANE_SURF register it should be resolvable via
GGTT to physical address pointing to actual framebuffer.
I couldn't find anything in the specs.
The simplest approach would be then do the same as in case of DGFX:
gen8_pte_t __iomem *gte = to_gt(i915)->ggtt->gsm;
gen8_pte_t pte;
gte += base / I915_GTT_PAGE_SIZE;
pte = ioread64(gte);
phys_base = pte & I915_GTT_PAGE_MASK;
Regards
Andrzej
>
> Other than what I wrote before, I noticed that the function 'i915_vma_pin'
> which calls to 'i915_gem_gtt_reserve' is the one that binds the right
> address space in the GTT for that stolen region.
>
> I see that in the function 'i915_vma_insert' (full call stack below),
> where if (flags & PIN_OFFSET_FIXED), then when calling 'i915_gem_gtt_reserve'
> we add an offset.
>
> Specifically in MeteorLake, and specifically when using GOP driver, this
> offset is equal to 0xfc00_0000. But as you mentioned, this is not strict.
>
> The if statement always renders true because in the function
> 'initial_plane_vma' we always set
> pinctl = PIN_GLOBAL | PIN_OFFSET_FIXED | base;
> where pinctl == flags (see file 'intel_plane_initial.c' line 145).
>
> Call stack:
> drm_mm_reserve_node
> i915_gem_gtt_reserve
> i915_vma_insert
> i915_vma_pin_ww
> i915_vma_pin
> initial_plane_vma
> intel_alloc_initial_plane_obj
> intel_find_initial_plane_obj
>
> Therefore, I believe the variable 'phys_base' in the
> function 'initial_plane_vma,' should be the the offset in the GEM BO
> and not the GTT offset, and because the base is added later on
> in the function 'i915_gem_gtt_reserve', this value should not be
> equal to base and be 0.
>
> Hope it makes more sense.
>
>>> This causes the
>>> function `i915_gem_object_create_region_at` to fail in line 128, when
>>> it attempts to verify that the range does not overflow:
>>>
>>> if (range_overflows(offset, size, resource_size(&mem->region)))
>>> return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
>>>
>>> where:
>>> offset = 0xfc000000
>>> size = 0x8ca000
>>> mem->region.end + 1 = 0x4400000
>>> mem->region.start = 0x800000
>>> resource_size(&mem->region) = 0x3c00000
>>>
>>> call stack:
>>> i915_gem_object_create_region_at
>>> initial_plane_vma
>>> intel_alloc_initial_plane_obj
>>> intel_find_initial_plane_obj
>>> intel_crtc_initial_plane_config
>>>
>>> Looking at the flow coming next, we see that `phys_base` is only used
>>> once, in function `_i915_gem_object_stolen_init`, in the context of
>>> the offset *in* the stolen memory. Combining that with an
>>> examinination of the history of the file seems to indicate the
>>> current value set is invalid.
>>>
>>> call stack (functions using `phys_base`)
>>> _i915_gem_object_stolen_init
>>> __i915_gem_object_create_region
>>> i915_gem_object_create_region_at
>>> initial_plane_vma
>>> intel_alloc_initial_plane_obj
>>> intel_find_initial_plane_obj
>>> intel_crtc_initial_plane_config
>>>
>>> [drm:_i915_gem_object_stolen_init] creating preallocated stolen
>>> object: stolen_offset=0x0000000000000000, size=0x00000000008ca000
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Paz Zcharya <pazz@chromium.org>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_plane_initial.c | 2 +-
>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_plane_initial.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_plane_initial.c
>>> index a55c09cbd0e4..e696cb13756a 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_plane_initial.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_plane_initial.c
>>> @@ -90,7 +90,7 @@ initial_plane_vma(struct drm_i915_private *i915,
>>> "Using phys_base=%pa, based on initial plane programming\n",
>>> &phys_base);
>>> } else {
>>> - phys_base = base;
>>> + phys_base = 0;
>>> mem = i915->mm.stolen_region;
>>> }
>>>
>>> --
>>> 2.42.0.869.gea05f2083d-goog
>>>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-11-21 12:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-11-05 17:27 [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915/display: Fix phys_base to be relative not absolute Paz Zcharya
2023-11-05 18:19 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.BAT: failure for " Patchwork
2023-11-15 3:13 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] " Rodrigo Vivi
2023-11-17 23:01 ` Paz Zcharya
2023-11-21 12:06 ` Andrzej Hajda [this message]
2023-11-22 13:26 ` Andrzej Hajda
2023-11-28 1:20 ` Paz Zcharya
2023-11-28 3:47 ` Paz Zcharya
2023-11-28 11:12 ` Andrzej Hajda
2023-11-28 11:19 ` Paz Zcharya
2023-11-30 16:24 ` Paz Zcharya
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=8dd6f4da-dcc9-4ea3-8395-bf048b0dbc93@intel.com \
--to=andrzej.hajda@intel.com \
--cc=airlied@gmail.com \
--cc=daniel@ffwll.ch \
--cc=ddavenport@chromium.org \
--cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=matthew.auld@intel.com \
--cc=mwojtas@chromium.org \
--cc=nirmoy.das@intel.com \
--cc=pazz@chromium.org \
--cc=rodrigo.vivi@intel.com \
--cc=seanpaul@chromium.org \
--cc=subratabanik@google.com \
--cc=tvrtko.ursulin@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