From: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
To: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Riana Tauro <riana.tauro@intel.com>,
<intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org>, <anshuman.gupta@intel.com>,
<matthew.d.roper@intel.com>, <aravind.iddamsetty@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] RFC drm/xe: Enable Boot Survivability mode
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2024 12:46:21 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Z2BnbVDjnTQ3CJYf@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <878qsfucxo.fsf@intel.com>
On Mon, Dec 16, 2024 at 12:42:11PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Dec 2024, Riana Tauro <riana.tauro@intel.com> wrote:
> > Enable boot survivability mode if pcode initialization fails and
> > if boot status indicates a failure. In this mode, drm card is not
> > exposed and driver probe returns success after loading the bare minimum
> > to allow firmware to be flashed via mei.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Riana Tauro <riana.tauro@intel.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_device.c | 9 +++++++--
> > drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_pci.c | 13 +++++++++++++
> > drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_survivability_mode.c | 3 +++
> > 3 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_device.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_device.c
> > index 56d4ffb650da..50ed980e1db9 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_device.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_device.c
> > @@ -51,6 +51,7 @@
> > #include "xe_pm.h"
> > #include "xe_query.h"
> > #include "xe_sriov.h"
> > +#include "xe_survivability_mode.h"
> > #include "xe_tile.h"
> > #include "xe_ttm_stolen_mgr.h"
> > #include "xe_ttm_sys_mgr.h"
> > @@ -585,8 +586,12 @@ int xe_device_probe_early(struct xe_device *xe)
> > update_device_info(xe);
> >
> > err = xe_pcode_probe_early(xe);
> > - if (err)
> > - return err;
> > + if (err) {
> > + if (xe->info.platform == XE_BATTLEMAGE && xe_survivability_mode_required(xe))
>
> Why the platform check here? Doesn't this stuff belong abstracted inside
> the survivability mode?
Indeed. Moving inside xe_survivability_mode_required() itself sounds the right thing
to do.
Also, it could be IS_DGFX && GRAPHICS_VER >= 30 instead of platform check...
>
> > + xe_survivability_mode_init(xe);
> > +
> > + return xe->survivability.mode ? 0 : err;
>
> Is it a good idea to start looking at survivability guts from all over
> the place? I mean xe->survivability.mode. Even its value should be an
> implementation detail, and this is using it to decide whether the
> previous call succeeded.
>
> I think this would benefit from hiding stuff better and providing
> interfaces. This is one of the things i915 sucks at, and it's really
> hard and tedious work to fix afterwards.
>
> Just imagine xe->survavibility is an opaque pointer (even if it isn't)
> and implement stuff based on that. It will make a world of difference in
> future maintainability.
indeed...
bool xe_survivability_mode_on()
{
return xe->survivability.mode;
}
would be enough I believe...
>
>
> BR,
> Jani.
>
>
> > + }
> >
> > err = wait_for_lmem_ready(xe);
> > if (err)
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_pci.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_pci.c
> > index 7d146e3e8e21..b9dcd36de06d 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_pci.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_pci.c
> > @@ -30,6 +30,7 @@
> > #include "xe_pm.h"
> > #include "xe_sriov.h"
> > #include "xe_step.h"
> > +#include "xe_survivability_mode.h"
> > #include "xe_tile.h"
> >
> > enum toggle_d3cold {
> > @@ -768,6 +769,9 @@ static void xe_pci_remove(struct pci_dev *pdev)
> > if (IS_SRIOV_PF(xe))
> > xe_pci_sriov_configure(pdev, 0);
> >
> > + if (xe->survivability.mode)
> > + return xe_survivability_mode_remove(xe);
> > +
> > xe_device_remove(xe);
> > xe_pm_runtime_fini(xe);
> > pci_set_drvdata(pdev, NULL);
> > @@ -840,6 +844,15 @@ static int xe_pci_probe(struct pci_dev *pdev, const struct pci_device_id *ent)
> > return err;
> >
> > err = xe_device_probe_early(xe);
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * In Boot Survivability mode, no drm card is exposed
> > + * and driver is loaded with bare minimum to allow
> > + * for firmware to be flashed through mei
> > + */
> > + if (!err && xe->survivability.mode)
> > + return 0;
> > +
> > if (err)
> > return err;
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_survivability_mode.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_survivability_mode.c
> > index 7e36989efd68..6c1e79b5c15f 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_survivability_mode.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_survivability_mode.c
> > @@ -176,7 +176,10 @@ bool xe_survivability_mode_required(struct xe_device *xe)
> > */
> > void xe_survivability_mode_remove(struct xe_device *xe)
> > {
> > + struct pci_dev *pdev = to_pci_dev(xe->drm.dev);
> > +
> > sysfs_remove_files(&xe->drm.dev->kobj, survivability_attrs);
> > + pci_set_drvdata(pdev, NULL);
> > }
> >
> > /**
>
> --
> Jani Nikula, Intel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-12-16 17:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-12-12 5:49 [PATCH 0/2] Enable Survivability mode Riana Tauro
2024-12-12 5:36 ` ✓ CI.Patch_applied: success for " Patchwork
2024-12-12 5:36 ` ✗ CI.checkpatch: warning " Patchwork
2024-12-12 5:37 ` ✓ CI.KUnit: success " Patchwork
2024-12-12 5:49 ` [PATCH 1/2] RFC drm/xe: Add functions and sysfs for boot survivability Riana Tauro
2024-12-12 22:57 ` Rodrigo Vivi
2024-12-13 8:04 ` Riana Tauro
2024-12-13 20:43 ` Rodrigo Vivi
2024-12-16 8:03 ` Riana Tauro
2024-12-16 17:48 ` Rodrigo Vivi
2024-12-12 5:49 ` [PATCH 2/2] RFC drm/xe: Enable Boot Survivability mode Riana Tauro
2024-12-12 22:59 ` Rodrigo Vivi
2024-12-16 10:42 ` Jani Nikula
2024-12-16 17:46 ` Rodrigo Vivi [this message]
2025-01-07 14:18 ` Riana Tauro
2024-12-12 5:55 ` ✓ CI.Build: success for Enable " Patchwork
2024-12-12 5:58 ` ✗ CI.Hooks: failure " Patchwork
2024-12-12 5:59 ` ✓ CI.checksparse: success " Patchwork
2024-12-12 6:26 ` ✓ Xe.CI.BAT: " Patchwork
2024-12-12 13:00 ` ✗ Xe.CI.Full: failure " 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=Z2BnbVDjnTQ3CJYf@intel.com \
--to=rodrigo.vivi@intel.com \
--cc=anshuman.gupta@intel.com \
--cc=aravind.iddamsetty@intel.com \
--cc=intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=jani.nikula@linux.intel.com \
--cc=matthew.d.roper@intel.com \
--cc=riana.tauro@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