Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] drm/i915: disable fbc due to Wa_16023588340

[Matthew Auld <matthew.auld@intel.com>]

On 02/07/2024 10:26, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Jul 2024, Matthew Auld <matthew.auld@intel.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 02/07/2024 09:17, Jani Nikula wrote:
>>> On Mon, 01 Jul 2024, Matthew Auld <matthew.auld@intel.com> wrote:
>>>> On BMG-G21 we need to disable fbc due to complications around the WA.
>>>>
>>>> v2:
>>>>    - Try to handle with i915_drv.h and compat layer. (Rodrigo)
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Matthew Auld <matthew.auld@intel.com>
>>>> Cc: Jonathan Cavitt <jonathan.cavitt@intel.com>
>>>> Cc: Matt Roper <matthew.d.roper@intel.com>
>>>> Cc: Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@intel.com>
>>>> Cc: Vinod Govindapillai <vinod.govindapillai@intel.com>
>>>> Cc: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
>>>> Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
>>>> ---
>>>>    drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_fbc.c          | 5 +++++
>>>>    drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h                   | 2 ++
>>>>    drivers/gpu/drm/xe/compat-i915-headers/i915_drv.h | 5 +++++
>>>>    3 files changed, 12 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_fbc.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_fbc.c
>>>> index 67116c9f1464..60131de77b4c 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_fbc.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_fbc.c
>>>> @@ -1237,6 +1237,11 @@ static int intel_fbc_check_plane(struct intel_atomic_state *state,
>>>>    		return 0;
>>>>    	}
>>>>    
>>>> +	if (DISPLAY_NEEDS_WA_16023588340(i915)) {
>>>> +		plane_state->no_fbc_reason = "Wa_16023588340";
>>>> +		return 0;
>>>> +	}
>>>> +
>>>>    	/* WaFbcTurnOffFbcWhenHyperVisorIsUsed:skl,bxt */
>>>>    	if (i915_vtd_active(i915) && (IS_SKYLAKE(i915) || IS_BROXTON(i915))) {
>>>>    		plane_state->no_fbc_reason = "VT-d enabled";
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
>>>> index d7723dd11c80..816a01fda3fe 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
>>>> @@ -762,4 +762,6 @@ IS_SUBPLATFORM(const struct drm_i915_private *i915,
>>>>    #define HAS_LMEMBAR_SMEM_STOLEN(i915) (!HAS_LMEM(i915) && \
>>>>    				       GRAPHICS_VER_FULL(i915) >= IP_VER(12, 70))
>>>>    
>>>> +#define DISPLAY_NEEDS_WA_16023588340(i915)	false
>>>> +
>>>
>>> Display feature macros don't belong in i915_drv.h.
>>
>> There is also the v1 here:
>> https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/599900/?series=135061&rev=1
>>
>> Where feedback was to handle it in i915_drv.h. Is the v1 method
>> acceptable here? Do you have an alternative suggestion?
> 
> Based on Lucas' reply, looks like it needs to be a function in a .c file
> anyway.
> 
> One of my goals lately has been to avoid including i915_drv.h from
> display code altogether. We're obviously not even close yet, but
> anything you put there is just another problem for me to solve. So I'd
> like you to solve it, not me. ;)

So no major objections with going back to v1 from your side? In 
addition, merging both patches via drm-xe-next would be acceptable?

> 
> BR,
> Jani.
> 
>>
>>>
>>> BR,
>>> Jani.
>>>
>>>>    #endif
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/compat-i915-headers/i915_drv.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/compat-i915-headers/i915_drv.h
>>>> index 2feedddf1e40..a4256144dff7 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/compat-i915-headers/i915_drv.h
>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/compat-i915-headers/i915_drv.h
>>>> @@ -15,6 +15,9 @@
>>>>    #include "i915_utils.h"
>>>>    #include "intel_runtime_pm.h"
>>>>    #include "xe_device_types.h"
>>>> +#include "xe_wa.h"
>>>> +
>>>> +#include <generated/xe_wa_oob.h>
>>>>    
>>>>    static inline struct drm_i915_private *to_i915(const struct drm_device *dev)
>>>>    {
>>>> @@ -120,6 +123,8 @@ struct i915_sched_attr {
>>>>    
>>>>    #define FORCEWAKE_ALL XE_FORCEWAKE_ALL
>>>>    
>>>> +#define DISPLAY_NEEDS_WA_16023588340(xe)	XE_WA(xe_root_mmio_gt(xe), 16023588340)
>>>> +
>>>>    #ifdef CONFIG_ARM64
>>>>    /*
>>>>     * arm64 indirectly includes linux/rtc.h,
>>>
>