Re: [PATCH] drm/xe/guc: Escalate GuC load failure immediately

[Daniele Ceraolo Spurio <daniele.ceraolospurio@intel.com>]

On 2/11/2025 1:53 AM, Upadhyay, Tejas wrote:
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Intel-xe <intel-xe-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org> On Behalf Of Daniele
>> Ceraolo Spurio
>> Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 6:17 AM
>> To: intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org
>> Cc: Ceraolo Spurio, Daniele <daniele.ceraolospurio@intel.com>; Brost,
>> Matthew <matthew.brost@intel.com>; Harrison, John C
>> <john.c.harrison@intel.com>
>> Subject: [PATCH] drm/xe/guc: Escalate GuC load failure immediately
>>
>> When the Xe was first introduced, we intentionally avoided escalating GuC
>> load failures, to not abort mid-probe. Xe is now mature enough and we
>> gracefully handle probe failures, so we can start escalating immediately.
>>
>> Note that even without this patch the probe is still aborted because the
>> attempt to enable CTs after GuC load will fail and that failure is already
>> escalated.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Daniele Ceraolo Spurio <daniele.ceraolospurio@intel.com>
>> Cc: Matthew Brost <matthew.brost@intel.com>
>> Cc: John Harrison <John.C.Harrison@Intel.com>
>> ---
>>   drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_guc.c | 10 +++++++---
>>   1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_guc.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_guc.c index
>> 1619c0a52db9..13c3084c42c2 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_guc.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_guc.c
>> @@ -938,7 +938,7 @@ static s32 guc_pc_get_cur_freq(struct xe_guc_pc
>> *guc_pc)  #endif
>>   #define GUC_LOAD_TIME_WARN_MS      200
>>
>> -static void guc_wait_ucode(struct xe_guc *guc)
>> +static int guc_wait_ucode(struct xe_guc *guc)
>>   {
>>   	struct xe_gt *gt = guc_to_gt(guc);
>>   	struct xe_mmio *mmio = &gt->mmio;
>> @@ -1045,6 +1045,8 @@ static void guc_wait_ucode(struct xe_guc *guc)
>>   			  delta_ms, xe_guc_pc_get_act_freq(guc_pc),
>> guc_pc_get_cur_freq(guc_pc),
>>   			  before_freq, status, count);
>>   	}
>> +
>> +	return load_done ? 0 : -EIO;
> Do you see possibility of load_done to be -1 and you will return success here?

You're right, I'll change this to load_done == 1.

Daniele

>
> Tejas
>>   }
>>
>>   static int __xe_guc_upload(struct xe_guc *guc) @@ -1077,14 +1079,16 @@
>> static int __xe_guc_upload(struct xe_guc *guc)
>>   		goto out;
>>
>>   	/* Wait for authentication */
>> -	guc_wait_ucode(guc);
>> +	ret = guc_wait_ucode(guc);
>> +	if (ret)
>> +		goto out;
>>
>>   	xe_uc_fw_change_status(&guc->fw, XE_UC_FIRMWARE_RUNNING);
>>   	return 0;
>>
>>   out:
>>   	xe_uc_fw_change_status(&guc->fw, XE_UC_FIRMWARE_LOAD_FAIL);
>> -	return 0	/* FIXME: ret, don't want to stop load currently */;
>> +	return ret;
>>   }
>>
>>   static int vf_guc_min_load_for_hwconfig(struct xe_guc *guc)
>> --
>> 2.43.0