Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 01/53] drm/i915: Add "release id" version

Lucas De Marchi
2021-07-07T15:40:40Z

On Wed, Jul 07, 2021 at 11:34:36AM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
>On Tue, 06 Jul 2021, Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@intel.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 05, 2021 at 02:52:31PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
>>>On Fri, 02 Jul 2021, Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>>>> On 01/07/2021 21:23, Matt Roper wrote:
>>>>> From: Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@intel.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> Besides the arch version returned by GRAPHICS_VER(), new platforms
>>>>> contain a "release id" to make clear the difference from one platform to
>>>>> another. Although for the first ones we may use them as if they were a
>>>>
>>>> What does "first ones" refer to here?
>>>>
>>>>> major/minor version, that is not true for all platforms: we may have a
>>>>> `release_id == n` that is closer to `n - 2` than to `n - 1`.
>>>>
>>>> Hm this is a bit confusing. Is the sentence simply trying to say that,
>>>> as the release id number is growing, hw capabilities are not simply
>>>> accumulating but can be removed as well? Otherwise I am not sure how the
>>>> user of these macros is supposed to act on this sentence.
>>>>
>>>>> However the release id number is not defined by hardware until we start
>>>>> using the GMD_ID register. For the platforms before that register is
>>>>> useful we will set the values in software and we can set them as we
>>>>> please. So the plan is to set them so we can group different features
>>>>> under a single GRAPHICS_VER_FULL() check.
>>>>>
>>>>> After GMD_ID is used, the usefulness of a "full version check" will be
>>>>> greatly reduced and will be mostly used for deciding workarounds and a
>>>>> few code paths. So it makes sense to keep it as a separate field from
>>>>> graphics_ver.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, currently there is not much use for the release id in media and
>>>>> display, so keep them out.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is a mix of 2 independent changes: one by me and the other by Matt
>>>>> Roper.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cc: Matt Roper <matthew.d.roper@intel.com>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@intel.com>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Matt Roper <matthew.d.roper@intel.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h | 6 ++++++
>>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_device_info.c | 2 ++
>>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_device_info.h | 2 ++
>>>>> 3 files changed, 10 insertions(+)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
>>>>> index 6dff4ca01241..9639800485b9 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
>>>>> @@ -1258,11 +1258,17 @@ static inline struct drm_i915_private *pdev_to_i915(struct pci_dev *pdev)
>>>>> */
>>>>> #define IS_GEN(dev_priv, n) (GRAPHICS_VER(dev_priv) == (n))
>>>>>
>>>>> +#define IP_VER(ver, release) ((ver) << 8 | (release))
>>>>> +
>>>>> #define GRAPHICS_VER(i915) (INTEL_INFO(i915)->graphics_ver)
>>>>> +#define GRAPHICS_VER_FULL(i915) IP_VER(INTEL_INFO(i915)->graphics_ver, \
>>>>> + INTEL_INFO(i915)->graphics_ver_release)
>>>>> #define IS_GRAPHICS_VER(i915, from, until) \
>>>>> (GRAPHICS_VER(i915) >= (from) && GRAPHICS_VER(i915) <= (until))
>>>>>
>>>>> #define MEDIA_VER(i915) (INTEL_INFO(i915)->media_ver)
>>>>> +#define MEDIA_VER_FULL(i915) IP_VER(INTEL_INFO(i915)->media_ver, \
>>>>> + INTEL_INFO(i915)->media_ver_release)
>>>>> #define IS_MEDIA_VER(i915, from, until) \
>>>>> (MEDIA_VER(i915) >= (from) && MEDIA_VER(i915) <= (until))
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_device_info.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_device_info.c
>>>>> index 7eaa92fee421..e8ad14f002c1 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_device_info.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_device_info.c
>>>>> @@ -97,7 +97,9 @@ void intel_device_info_print_static(const struct intel_device_info *info,
>>>>> struct drm_printer *p)
>>>>> {
>>>>> drm_printf(p, "graphics_ver: %u\n", info->graphics_ver);
>>>>> + drm_printf(p, "graphics_ver_release: %u\n", info->graphics_ver_release);
>>>>
>>>> I get the VER and VER_FULL in the macros but could 'ver' and
>>>> 'ver_release' here and in the code simply be renamed to 'ver'/'version'
>>>> and 'release'? Maybe it is just me but don't think I encountered the
>>>> term "version release" before.
>>>
>>>Just bikeshedding here, but I thought of:
>>>
>>> if (info->grapics_ver_release)
>>> drm_printf(p, "graphics_ver: %u.%u\n", info->graphics_ver, info->graphics_ver_release);
>>> else
>>> drm_printf(p, "graphics_ver: %u\n", info->graphics_ver);
>>
>> humn... a suggestion that I got internally a few week ago and I forgot
>> to update this was that this doesn't need to be abbreviated in debugfs
>> and could very well be:
>>
>> drm_printf(p, "graphics version: %u\n", info->graphics_ver);
>> drm_printf(p, "graphics release: %u\n", info->graphics_ver_release);
>>>
>>>Also, I thought "x_ver" and "x_ver_release" sounds a bit odd, perhaps
>>>having "x_ver" and "x_rel" is more natural?
>>
>> Not sure what direction to go now though. Maybe trying to put all
>> suggestions together:
>>
>> if (info->graphics_rel)
>> drm_printf(p, "graphics version: %u.%u\n", info->graphics_ver, info->graphics_rel);
>> else
>> drm_printf(p, "graphics version: %u\n", info->graphics_ver);
>>
>> One thing I like is that doing `| grep "graphics version"`
>> gives all info you are searching for.
>
>I'd like that, but this is all bikeshedding, really.

I already updated our local copy with all of this, so I'm fine including
that in the next version... since this is the first patch, I can also
send it standalone.

Lucas De Marchi