From: "Levi, Ilia" <ilia.levi@intel.com>
To: Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdeczko@intel.com>,
<intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org>
Cc: <matthew.d.roper@intel.com>, <lucas.demarchi@intel.com>,
<koby.elbaz@intel.com>, <yaron.avizrat@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] drm/xe: Add xe_mmio_init() initialization function
Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2025 15:34:01 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <9be76fdd-01c4-4e2a-93f5-4ead7ad30239@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <fd9fd363-a43a-46bb-b85a-cac565adfbcb@intel.com>
On 05/02/2025 17:56, Michal Wajdeczko wrote:
>
> On 02.02.2025 12:00, Ilia Levi wrote:
>> Add a convenience function for minimal initialization of struct xe_mmio.
>> This function also validates that the entirety of the provided mmio region
>> is usable with struct xe_reg.
>>
>> v2: Modify commit message, add kernel doc, refactor assert (Michal)
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Ilia Levi <ilia.levi@intel.com>
> Reviewed-by: Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdeczko@intel.com>
>
> with one nit below
>
>> ---
>> drivers/gpu/drm/xe/regs/xe_reg_defs.h | 4 +++-
>> drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_gt.c | 7 +++---
>> drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_mmio.c | 33 ++++++++++++++++++---------
>> drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_mmio.h | 2 ++
>> 4 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/regs/xe_reg_defs.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/regs/xe_reg_defs.h
>> index 89716172fbb8..26d00d825454 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/regs/xe_reg_defs.h
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/regs/xe_reg_defs.h
>> @@ -10,6 +10,8 @@
>>
>> #include "compat-i915-headers/i915_reg_defs.h"
>>
>> +#define XE_REG_ADDR_WIDTH 22
> maybe we should also add a comment for this definition that we aim to
> support at most 8MB MMIO regions and define this as:
>
> #define XE_REG_ADDR_SPACE SZ_8M
>
> so we can use this definition as-is in the assert below and then for the
> xe_reg.addr bit width use const_ilog2(XE_REG_ADDR_SPACE) ?
It is a good idea, but the limitation comes from the fact that we use only
22 bits to represent the address, not because we want to support up to a
specific size. The limitation is imposed by the specific implementation -
if we used a u64 for the address, we wouldn't have any limitation at all.
Thus, I think reversing the computation would convey the wrong idea.
However, I've added and documented XE_MMIO_SIZE_MAX macro in v3. Let me know
if it makes more sense now.
- Ilia
>> +
>> /**
>> * struct xe_reg - Register definition
>> *
>> @@ -21,7 +23,7 @@ struct xe_reg {
>> union {
>> struct {
>> /** @addr: address */
>> - u32 addr:22;
>> + u32 addr:XE_REG_ADDR_WIDTH;
>> /**
>> * @masked: register is "masked", with upper 16bits used
>> * to identify the bits that are updated on the lower
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_gt.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_gt.c
>> index 01a4a852b8f4..f10c1f5fbbe1 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_gt.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_gt.c
>> @@ -637,10 +637,9 @@ int xe_gt_init(struct xe_gt *gt)
>> void xe_gt_mmio_init(struct xe_gt *gt)
>> {
>> struct xe_tile *tile = gt_to_tile(gt);
>> + struct xe_device *xe = tile_to_xe(tile);
>>
>> - gt->mmio.regs = tile->mmio.regs;
>> - gt->mmio.regs_size = tile->mmio.regs_size;
>> - gt->mmio.tile = tile;
>> + xe_mmio_init(>->mmio, tile, tile->mmio.regs, tile->mmio.regs_size);
>>
>> if (gt->info.type == XE_GT_TYPE_MEDIA) {
>> gt->mmio.adj_offset = MEDIA_GT_GSI_OFFSET;
>> @@ -650,7 +649,7 @@ void xe_gt_mmio_init(struct xe_gt *gt)
>> gt->mmio.adj_limit = 0;
>> }
>>
>> - if (IS_SRIOV_VF(gt_to_xe(gt)))
>> + if (IS_SRIOV_VF(xe))
>> gt->mmio.sriov_vf_gt = gt;
>> }
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_mmio.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_mmio.c
>> index 3aed849a128b..8ba314de02ce 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_mmio.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_mmio.c
>> @@ -55,7 +55,6 @@ static void tiles_fini(void *arg)
>> static void mmio_multi_tile_setup(struct xe_device *xe, size_t tile_mmio_size)
>> {
>> struct xe_tile *tile;
>> - void __iomem *regs;
>> u8 id;
>>
>> /*
>> @@ -94,13 +93,8 @@ static void mmio_multi_tile_setup(struct xe_device *xe, size_t tile_mmio_size)
>> }
>> }
>>
>> - regs = xe->mmio.regs;
>> - for_each_tile(tile, xe, id) {
>> - tile->mmio.regs_size = SZ_4M;
>> - tile->mmio.regs = regs;
>> - tile->mmio.tile = tile;
>> - regs += tile_mmio_size;
>> - }
>> + for_each_remote_tile(tile, xe, id)
>> + xe_mmio_init(&tile->mmio, tile, xe->mmio.regs + id * tile_mmio_size, SZ_4M);
>> }
>>
>> int xe_mmio_probe_tiles(struct xe_device *xe)
>> @@ -140,13 +134,30 @@ int xe_mmio_probe_early(struct xe_device *xe)
>> }
>>
>> /* Setup first tile; other tiles (if present) will be setup later. */
>> - root_tile->mmio.regs_size = SZ_4M;
>> - root_tile->mmio.regs = xe->mmio.regs;
>> - root_tile->mmio.tile = root_tile;
>> + xe_mmio_init(&root_tile->mmio, root_tile, xe->mmio.regs, SZ_4M);
>>
>> return devm_add_action_or_reset(xe->drm.dev, mmio_fini, xe);
>> }
>>
>> +/**
>> + * xe_mmio_init() - Initialize an MMIO instance
>> + * @mmio: Pointer to the MMIO instance to initialize
>> + * @tile: The tile to which the MMIO region belongs
>> + * @ptr: Pointer to the start of the MMIO region
>> + * @size: The size of the MMIO region in bytes
>> + *
>> + * This is a convenience function for minimal initialization of struct xe_mmio.
>> + */
>> +void xe_mmio_init(struct xe_mmio *mmio, struct xe_tile *tile, void __iomem *ptr, u32 size)
>> +{
>> + /* Validate that the entire MMIO region is usable with struct xe_reg */
>> + xe_tile_assert(tile, size <= BIT(XE_REG_ADDR_WIDTH + 1));
>> +
>> + mmio->regs = ptr;
>> + mmio->regs_size = size;
>> + mmio->tile = tile;
>> +}
>> +
>> static void mmio_flush_pending_writes(struct xe_mmio *mmio)
>> {
>> #define DUMMY_REG_OFFSET 0x130030
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_mmio.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_mmio.h
>> index b32e7ee4b23e..c151ba569003 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_mmio.h
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_mmio.h
>> @@ -14,6 +14,8 @@ struct xe_reg;
>> int xe_mmio_probe_early(struct xe_device *xe);
>> int xe_mmio_probe_tiles(struct xe_device *xe);
>>
>> +void xe_mmio_init(struct xe_mmio *mmio, struct xe_tile *tile, void __iomem *ptr, u32 size);
>> +
>> u8 xe_mmio_read8(struct xe_mmio *mmio, struct xe_reg reg);
>> u16 xe_mmio_read16(struct xe_mmio *mmio, struct xe_reg reg);
>> void xe_mmio_write32(struct xe_mmio *mmio, struct xe_reg reg, u32 val);
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-02-09 13:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 46+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-01-30 10:50 [PATCH 1/2] drm/xe: s/xe_mmio_init/xe_mmio_probe_early Ilia Levi
2025-01-30 10:50 ` [PATCH 2/2] drm/xe: Add xe_mmio_init() initialization function Ilia Levi
2025-01-30 19:03 ` Lucas De Marchi
2025-01-30 19:54 ` Michal Wajdeczko
2025-01-31 7:37 ` Levi, Ilia
2025-02-02 11:00 ` [PATCH v2 " Ilia Levi
2025-02-05 15:56 ` Michal Wajdeczko
2025-02-09 13:13 ` [PATCH v3 " Ilia Levi
2025-02-12 23:18 ` Michal Wajdeczko
2025-02-13 9:35 ` [PATCH v4 " Ilia Levi
2025-02-13 23:53 ` Michal Wajdeczko
2025-02-09 13:34 ` Levi, Ilia [this message]
2025-01-30 11:48 ` ✓ CI.Patch_applied: success for series starting with [1/2] drm/xe: s/xe_mmio_init/xe_mmio_probe_early Patchwork
2025-01-30 11:49 ` ✓ CI.checkpatch: " Patchwork
2025-01-30 11:50 ` ✓ CI.KUnit: " Patchwork
2025-01-30 12:06 ` ✓ CI.Build: " Patchwork
2025-01-30 12:09 ` ✓ CI.Hooks: " Patchwork
2025-01-30 12:10 ` ✓ CI.checksparse: " Patchwork
2025-01-30 12:38 ` ✓ Xe.CI.BAT: " Patchwork
2025-01-30 14:42 ` ✗ Xe.CI.Full: failure " Patchwork
2025-01-30 18:48 ` [PATCH 1/2] " Lucas De Marchi
2025-02-02 11:55 ` ✓ CI.Patch_applied: success for series starting with [1/2] drm/xe: s/xe_mmio_init/xe_mmio_probe_early (rev2) Patchwork
2025-02-02 11:56 ` ✓ CI.checkpatch: " Patchwork
2025-02-02 11:57 ` ✓ CI.KUnit: " Patchwork
2025-02-02 12:13 ` ✓ CI.Build: " Patchwork
2025-02-02 12:15 ` ✓ CI.Hooks: " Patchwork
2025-02-02 12:17 ` ✓ CI.checksparse: " Patchwork
2025-02-02 12:36 ` ✓ Xe.CI.BAT: " Patchwork
2025-02-02 13:45 ` ✗ Xe.CI.Full: failure " Patchwork
2025-02-09 13:30 ` ✓ CI.Patch_applied: success for series starting with [1/2] drm/xe: s/xe_mmio_init/xe_mmio_probe_early (rev3) Patchwork
2025-02-09 13:30 ` ✓ CI.checkpatch: " Patchwork
2025-02-09 13:31 ` ✓ CI.KUnit: " Patchwork
2025-02-09 13:48 ` ✓ CI.Build: " Patchwork
2025-02-09 13:50 ` ✓ CI.Hooks: " Patchwork
2025-02-09 13:51 ` ✓ CI.checksparse: " Patchwork
2025-02-09 14:11 ` ✓ Xe.CI.BAT: " Patchwork
2025-02-09 15:23 ` ✗ Xe.CI.Full: failure " Patchwork
2025-02-13 9:41 ` ✓ CI.Patch_applied: success for series starting with [1/2] drm/xe: s/xe_mmio_init/xe_mmio_probe_early (rev4) Patchwork
2025-02-13 9:42 ` ✓ CI.checkpatch: " Patchwork
2025-02-13 9:43 ` ✓ CI.KUnit: " Patchwork
2025-02-13 9:59 ` ✓ CI.Build: " Patchwork
2025-02-13 10:02 ` ✓ CI.Hooks: " Patchwork
2025-02-13 10:03 ` ✓ CI.checksparse: " Patchwork
2025-02-14 5:58 ` ✓ Xe.CI.BAT: " Patchwork
2025-02-17 8:02 ` ✗ Xe.CI.Full: failure " Patchwork
2025-02-18 16:31 ` [PATCH 1/2] drm/xe: s/xe_mmio_init/xe_mmio_probe_early Lucas De Marchi
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=9be76fdd-01c4-4e2a-93f5-4ead7ad30239@intel.com \
--to=ilia.levi@intel.com \
--cc=intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=koby.elbaz@intel.com \
--cc=lucas.demarchi@intel.com \
--cc=matthew.d.roper@intel.com \
--cc=michal.wajdeczko@intel.com \
--cc=yaron.avizrat@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