Re: [PATCH 1/1] drm/xe: Add support for WA 14028250015

[Gustavo Sousa <gustavo.sousa@intel.com>]

"Teres Alexis, Alan Previn" <alan.previn.teres.alexis@intel.com> writes:

> [snip]
>
>> Also, on the subject, I would prefer that we stick to the notation
>> Wa_14028250015.
> will fix
> [snip]
>
>> 
>> >  	GUC_WA_KLV_REMAP_RANGED_TLB_INV							= 0x900f,
>> >  	GUC_WA_KLV_IGNORE_MMIO_READ_SEM_TOKEN_64					= 0x9010,
>> >  	GUC_WA_KLV_IGNORE_MULTIQ_CTX_COMPLETE_WITH_PREEMPT_IN_CSB			= 0x9011,
>> > +	GUC_WA_KLV_ENABLE_PAGE_RECLAIM_ERROR_COMPLETION					= 0x9012,
>> 
>> Probably better to use the same name as defined by GuC here?
> if u mean the internal spec - sure i can do that but i didnt realize that is the convention here.

I'm not sure if this is the convention though. :-)

I just thought it would make sense to keep the names in sync.  Maybe
Daniele can provide his input here.

--
Gustavo Sousa

> [snip]
>
>> > +	/* On GuC 70.78 onwards, we enable GuC PRL-completion-IRQ workaround on applicable GMIDs */
>> > +	if (XE_GT_WA(gt, 14028250015) && GUC_FIRMWARE_VER_AT_LEAST(&gt->uc.guc, 70, 78) &&
>> > +	    gt_to_xe(gt)->info.has_page_reclaim_hw_assist)
>> 
>> Should we really gate this by the has_page_reclaim_hw_assist feature
>> flag?  This flag can be changed at runtime via debugfs.  I would assume
>> that GuC would do the right thing if PRL is not supported on the IP it
>> is running.
>
> yeah - like your idea better - will just always do it.
>
> [snip]