From: Riana Tauro <riana.tauro@intel.com>
To: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
Cc: <intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org>, <anshuman.gupta@intel.com>,
<aravind.iddamsetty@intel.com>, <badal.nilawar@intel.com>,
<matthew.d.roper@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] RFC drm/xe: re-order lmem init check and wait for initialization to complete
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2024 10:53:08 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <72814323-19e7-4ddc-9551-892f582490cc@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Zesj1vgtwk877OhR@intel.com>
Hi Rodrigo
On 3/8/2024 8:12 PM, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 08, 2024 at 02:25:17PM +0530, Riana Tauro wrote:
>> Lmem init check should be done only after pcode initialization
>> status is complete. Move lmem init check after pcode status
>> check. Also wait for a short while after pcode status check
>> to allow completion of the task.
>>
>> Failing to do so, can lead to aborting the module load
>> leaving the system unusable. Wait until the lmem initialization
>> is complete within a timeout (60s) or till the user aborts.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Riana Tauro <riana.tauro@intel.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_device.c | 53 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>> drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_mmio.c | 29 -------------------
>> 2 files changed, 52 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_device.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_device.c
>> index 83dd60f68566..4806e7806be5 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_device.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_device.c
>> @@ -413,12 +413,59 @@ static int xe_set_dma_info(struct xe_device *xe)
>> return err;
>> }
>>
>> +static int verify_lmem_ready(struct xe_gt *gt)
>
> maybe bool?
will change this
>
>> +{
>> + return xe_mmio_read32(gt, GU_CNTL) & LMEM_INIT;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int wait_for_lmem_ready(struct xe_device *xe)
>> +{
>> + struct xe_gt *gt = xe_root_mmio_gt(xe);
>> + unsigned long timeout, start;
>> +
>> + if (!IS_DGFX(xe))
>> + return 0;
>> +
>> + if (IS_SRIOV_VF(xe))
>> + return 0;
>> + /*
>> + * The boot firmware initializes local memory and assesses its health.
>> + * If memory training fails, the punit will have been instructed to
>> + * keep the GT powered down; we won't be able to communicate with it
>> + * and we should not continue with driver initialization.
>> + */
>
> the comment is negative in a positive outcome.
> I mean, one reading this comment above might conclude that we are returning below
> because we won't be able to communicate with the GT.
>
> but the code is right and we need this change. thanks for taking care of it.
Will move it to the place where its returning EPROBE_DEFER on timeout.
Thanks for the ack. Will fix these in the next rev
Thanks
Riana
>
> Acked-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
>
>> + if (verify_lmem_ready(gt))
>> + return 0;
>> +
>> + drm_dbg(&xe->drm, "Waiting for lmem initialisation\n");
>> +
>> + start = jiffies;
>> + timeout = start + msecs_to_jiffies(60 * 1000); /* 60 sec! */
>> +
>> + do {
>> + if (signal_pending(current))
>> + return -EINTR;
>> +
>> + if (time_after(jiffies, timeout))
>> + return -EPROBE_DEFER;
>> +
>> + msleep(20);
>> +
>> + } while (!verify_lmem_ready(gt));
>> +
>> + drm_dbg(&xe->drm, "lmem ready after %ums",
>> + jiffies_to_msecs(jiffies - start));
>> +
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> /**
>> * xe_device_probe_early: Device early probe
>> * @xe: xe device instance
>> *
>> * Initialize MMIO resources that don't require any
>> - * knowledge about tile count. Also initialize pcode
>> + * knowledge about tile count. Also initialize pcode and
>> + * check vram initialization on root tile.
>> *
>> * Return: 0 on success, error code on failure
>> */
>> @@ -438,6 +485,10 @@ int xe_device_probe_early(struct xe_device *xe)
>> if (err)
>> return err;
>>
>> + err = wait_for_lmem_ready(xe);
>> + if (err)
>> + return err;
>> +
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_mmio.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_mmio.c
>> index 7ba2477452d7..7fc0c5453b21 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_mmio.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_mmio.c
>> @@ -360,30 +360,6 @@ static void mmio_fini(struct drm_device *drm, void *arg)
>> iounmap(xe->mem.vram.mapping);
>> }
>>
>> -static int xe_verify_lmem_ready(struct xe_device *xe)
>> -{
>> - struct xe_gt *gt = xe_root_mmio_gt(xe);
>> -
>> - if (!IS_DGFX(xe))
>> - return 0;
>> -
>> - if (IS_SRIOV_VF(xe))
>> - return 0;
>> -
>> - /*
>> - * The boot firmware initializes local memory and assesses its health.
>> - * If memory training fails, the punit will have been instructed to
>> - * keep the GT powered down; we won't be able to communicate with it
>> - * and we should not continue with driver initialization.
>> - */
>> - if (!(xe_mmio_read32(gt, GU_CNTL) & LMEM_INIT)) {
>> - drm_err(&xe->drm, "VRAM not initialized by firmware\n");
>> - return -ENODEV;
>> - }
>> -
>> - return 0;
>> -}
>> -
>> int xe_mmio_init(struct xe_device *xe)
>> {
>> struct pci_dev *pdev = to_pci_dev(xe->drm.dev);
>> @@ -407,16 +383,11 @@ int xe_mmio_init(struct xe_device *xe)
>> int xe_mmio_root_tile_init(struct xe_device *xe)
>> {
>> struct xe_tile *root_tile = xe_device_get_root_tile(xe);
>> - int err;
>>
>> /* Setup first tile; other tiles (if present) will be setup later. */
>> root_tile->mmio.size = SZ_16M;
>> root_tile->mmio.regs = xe->mmio.regs;
>>
>> - err = xe_verify_lmem_ready(xe);
>> - if (err)
>> - return err;
>> -
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>> --
>> 2.40.0
>>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-03-11 5:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-03-08 8:55 [PATCH 0/2] Pcode init status and lmem check Riana Tauro
2024-03-08 8:49 ` ✓ CI.Patch_applied: success for " Patchwork
2024-03-08 8:49 ` ✓ CI.checkpatch: " Patchwork
2024-03-08 8:50 ` ✓ CI.KUnit: " Patchwork
2024-03-08 8:55 ` [PATCH 1/2] RFC drm/xe: check pcode init status only on root gt of root tile Riana Tauro
2024-03-08 14:37 ` Rodrigo Vivi
2024-03-11 5:11 ` Riana Tauro
2024-03-11 10:18 ` Ghimiray, Himal Prasad
2024-03-11 10:58 ` Ghimiray, Himal Prasad
2024-03-08 8:55 ` [PATCH 2/2] RFC drm/xe: re-order lmem init check and wait for initialization to complete Riana Tauro
2024-03-08 14:42 ` Rodrigo Vivi
2024-03-11 5:23 ` Riana Tauro [this message]
2024-03-11 14:40 ` Lucas De Marchi
2024-03-11 16:41 ` Rodrigo Vivi
2024-03-11 11:08 ` Ghimiray, Himal Prasad
2024-03-08 9:06 ` ✓ CI.Build: success for Pcode init status and lmem check Patchwork
2024-03-08 9:06 ` ✓ CI.Hooks: " Patchwork
2024-03-08 9:08 ` ✓ CI.checksparse: " Patchwork
2024-03-08 9:37 ` ✗ CI.BAT: failure " Patchwork
2024-03-08 12:59 ` ✓ CI.Patch_applied: success for Pcode init status and lmem check (rev2) Patchwork
2024-03-08 13:00 ` ✓ CI.checkpatch: " Patchwork
2024-03-08 13:01 ` ✓ CI.KUnit: " Patchwork
2024-03-08 13:11 ` ✓ CI.Build: " Patchwork
2024-03-08 13:12 ` ✓ CI.Hooks: " Patchwork
2024-03-08 13:13 ` ✓ CI.checksparse: " Patchwork
2024-03-08 13:45 ` ✓ CI.BAT: " 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=72814323-19e7-4ddc-9551-892f582490cc@intel.com \
--to=riana.tauro@intel.com \
--cc=anshuman.gupta@intel.com \
--cc=aravind.iddamsetty@intel.com \
--cc=badal.nilawar@intel.com \
--cc=intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=matthew.d.roper@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