From: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
To: Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdeczko@intel.com>
Cc: John Harrison <john.c.harrison@intel.com>,
<intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
<intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org>,
"Jani Nikula" <jani.nikula@intel.com>,
Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@intel.com>,
Matthew Brost <matthew.brost@intel.com>,
Daniele Ceraolo Spurio <daniele.ceraolospurio@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/7] Promote GuC ABI headers to shared location
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2024 18:12:20 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZmjLxGDpjo6EMUxN@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <a0d7968d-81c5-4328-8654-9feab682655d@intel.com>
On Tue, Jun 11, 2024 at 11:45:17PM +0200, Michal Wajdeczko wrote:
>
>
> On 11.06.2024 22:32, John Harrison wrote:
> > On 6/11/2024 07:30, Michal Wajdeczko wrote:
> >> There are many GuC ABI definitions named in the same way by the i915
> >> and Xe drivers, preventing proper generation of the documentation.
> >>
> >> Promote GuC ABI definitions to shared location that can be used by
> >> both drivers and can be included in documentation.
> > I still very strongly feel that this is the wrong place for such
> > documentation. We do not document any of the hardware registers in the
> > driver, nor the MI_ instructions, etc. Why is this any different? The
> > GuC ABI is not under the control of the Linux kernel driver, either i915
> > or Xe. It is effectively a hardware interface no different to any other
> > hardware interface. It is already fully documented by the owners of that
> > interface. Rather than just copying random chunks of that documentation
> > into the kernel driver, we should just be publishing the official
> > document itself. Same as we do for the rest of the hardware.
>
> so go publish this official document
>
> in the meantime IMO it is useful to show, with really little effort, on
> what grounds the communication between i915/Xe and GuC works, so
> everyone, not just selected engineers, can understand and review our
> implementation and check its correctness
>
> furthermore, if you don't like any hw documentation then we should
> revisit what is already in gpu/i915 section and also reconsider all our
> efforts to document all non-static driver functions, as those functions
> are still internal to the driver, not to be used outside
I second that. This is useful documentation internal to our driver.
Specially with a fw which has an ABI that demands version compatibility
with the driver like this.
>
> >
> > John.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Cc: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com>
> >> Cc: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
> >> Cc: Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@intel.com>
> >> Cc: Matthew Brost <matthew.brost@intel.com>
> >> Cc: Daniele Ceraolo Spurio <daniele.ceraolospurio@intel.com>
> >> Cc: John Harrison <John.C.Harrison@Intel.com>
> >>
> >> Michal Wajdeczko (7):
> >> drm/xe/guc: Promote GuC ABI headers to shared location
> >> Documentation/gpu: Separate GuC ABI section
> >> Documentation/gpu: Switch to shared GuC ABI definitions
> >> drm/intel/guc: Update CTB communication ABI
> >> drm/intel/guc: Add new KLV definitions
> >> drm/i915: Use shared GuC ABI definitions
> >> drm/xe: Promote SR-IOV GuC ABI definitions to shared location
> >>
> >> Documentation/gpu/drivers.rst | 1 +
> >> Documentation/gpu/guc.rst | 23 ++
> >> Documentation/gpu/i915.rst | 9 -
> >> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/Makefile | 5 +
> >> .../gt/uc/abi/guc_communication_ctb_abi.h | 170 -----------
> >> .../gt/uc/abi/guc_communication_mmio_abi.h | 49 ----
> >> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/abi/guc_klvs_abi.h | 112 --------
> >> .../gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/abi/guc_messages_abi.h | 264 ------------------
> >> .../guc}/abi/guc_actions_sriov_abi.h | 0
> >> .../guc}/abi/guc_communication_ctb_abi.h | 2 +
> >> .../guc}/abi/guc_communication_mmio_abi.h | 0
> >> .../drm/{xe => intel/guc}/abi/guc_klvs_abi.h | 18 +-
> >> .../{xe => intel/guc}/abi/guc_messages_abi.h | 0
> >> .../guc}/abi/guc_relay_actions_abi.h | 0
> >> .../guc}/abi/guc_relay_communication_abi.h | 0
> >> drivers/gpu/drm/xe/Makefile | 5 +
> >> 16 files changed, 49 insertions(+), 609 deletions(-)
> >> create mode 100644 Documentation/gpu/guc.rst
> >> delete mode 100644
> >> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/abi/guc_communication_ctb_abi.h
> >> delete mode 100644
> >> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/abi/guc_communication_mmio_abi.h
> >> delete mode 100644 drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/abi/guc_klvs_abi.h
> >> delete mode 100644 drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/abi/guc_messages_abi.h
> >> rename drivers/gpu/drm/{xe => intel/guc}/abi/guc_actions_sriov_abi.h
> >> (100%)
> >> rename drivers/gpu/drm/{xe =>
> >> intel/guc}/abi/guc_communication_ctb_abi.h (98%)
> >> rename drivers/gpu/drm/{xe =>
> >> intel/guc}/abi/guc_communication_mmio_abi.h (100%)
> >> rename drivers/gpu/drm/{xe => intel/guc}/abi/guc_klvs_abi.h (97%)
> >> rename drivers/gpu/drm/{xe => intel/guc}/abi/guc_messages_abi.h (100%)
> >> rename drivers/gpu/drm/{xe => intel/guc}/abi/guc_relay_actions_abi.h
> >> (100%)
> >> rename drivers/gpu/drm/{xe =>
> >> intel/guc}/abi/guc_relay_communication_abi.h (100%)
> >>
> >
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-06-11 22:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-06-11 14:30 [RFC 0/7] Promote GuC ABI headers to shared location Michal Wajdeczko
2024-06-11 14:30 ` [RFC 1/7] drm/xe/guc: " Michal Wajdeczko
2024-06-11 14:30 ` [RFC 2/7] Documentation/gpu: Separate GuC ABI section Michal Wajdeczko
2024-06-11 14:30 ` [RFC 3/7] Documentation/gpu: Switch to shared GuC ABI definitions Michal Wajdeczko
2024-06-11 14:30 ` [RFC 4/7] drm/intel/guc: Update CTB communication ABI Michal Wajdeczko
2024-06-11 14:30 ` [RFC 5/7] drm/intel/guc: Add new KLV definitions Michal Wajdeczko
2024-06-11 14:30 ` [RFC 6/7] drm/i915: Use shared GuC ABI definitions Michal Wajdeczko
2024-06-11 14:30 ` [RFC 7/7] drm/xe: Promote SR-IOV GuC ABI definitions to shared location Michal Wajdeczko
2024-06-11 14:36 ` ✓ CI.Patch_applied: success for Promote GuC ABI headers " Patchwork
2024-06-11 14:36 ` ✗ CI.checkpatch: warning " Patchwork
2024-06-11 14:37 ` ✓ CI.KUnit: success " Patchwork
2024-06-11 14:49 ` ✓ CI.Build: " Patchwork
2024-06-11 14:51 ` ✗ CI.Hooks: failure " Patchwork
2024-06-11 14:52 ` ✗ CI.checksparse: warning " Patchwork
2024-06-11 15:13 ` [RFC 0/7] " Lucas De Marchi
2024-06-11 15:34 ` ✓ CI.BAT: success for " Patchwork
2024-06-11 17:08 ` ✗ CI.FULL: failure " Patchwork
2024-06-11 20:32 ` [RFC 0/7] " John Harrison
2024-06-11 21:45 ` Michal Wajdeczko
2024-06-11 22:12 ` Rodrigo Vivi [this message]
2024-06-12 4:12 ` Lucas De Marchi
2024-06-12 21:18 ` John Harrison
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=ZmjLxGDpjo6EMUxN@intel.com \
--to=rodrigo.vivi@intel.com \
--cc=daniele.ceraolospurio@intel.com \
--cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=jani.nikula@intel.com \
--cc=john.c.harrison@intel.com \
--cc=lucas.demarchi@intel.com \
--cc=matthew.brost@intel.com \
--cc=michal.wajdeczko@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