Skip to content

cloud-kernel
cloud-kernel

openanolis / cloud-kernel
1 年多 前同步成功

通知 160
Star 36
Fork 7
cloud-kernel
cloud-kernel
切换分支/标签
  1. 12 1月, 2015 1 次提交
  3. 16 12月, 2014 1 次提交
  5. 10 12月, 2014 1 次提交
    • D
      drm/i915/bdw: Fix the write setting up the WIZ hashing mode · 98533251
      由 Damien Lespiau 提交于 
      I was playing with clang and oh surprise! a warning trigerred by
-Wshift-overflow (gcc doesn't have this one):

    WA_SET_BIT_MASKED(GEN7_GT_MODE,
                      GEN6_WIZ_HASHING_MASK | GEN6_WIZ_HASHING_16x4);

    drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.c:786:2: warning: signed shift result
      (0x28002000000) requires 43 bits to represent, but 'int' only has 32 bits
      [-Wshift-overflow]
        WA_SET_BIT_MASKED(GEN7_GT_MODE,
        ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.c:737:15: note: expanded from macro
      'WA_SET_BIT_MASKED'
        WA_REG(addr, _MASKED_BIT_ENABLE(mask), (mask) & 0xffff)

Turned out GEN6_WIZ_HASHING_MASK was already shifted by 16, and we were
trying to shift it a bit more.

The other thing is that it's not the usual case of setting WA bits here, we
need to have separate mask and value.

To fix this, I've introduced a new _MASKED_FIELD() macro that takes both the
(unshifted) mask and the desired value and the rest of the patch ripples
through from it.

This bug was introduced when reworking the WA emission in:

  Commit 7225342a
  Author: Mika Kuoppala <mika.kuoppala@linux.intel.com>
  Date:   Tue Oct 7 17:21:26 2014 +0300

      drm/i915: Build workaround list in ring initialization

v2: Invert the order of the mask and value arguments (Daniel Vetter)
    Rewrite _MASKED_BIT_ENABLE() and _MASKED_BIT_DISABLE() with
    _MASKED_FIELD() (Jani Nikula)
    Make sure we only evaluate 'a' once in _MASKED_BIT_ENABLE() (Dave Gordon)
    Add check to ensure the value is within the mask boundaries (Chris Wilson)

v3: Ensure the the value and mask are 16 bits (Dave Gordon)

Cc: Mika Kuoppala <mika.kuoppala@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Arun Siluvery <arun.siluvery@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: NDamien Lespiau <damien.lespiau@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: NJani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com>
      98533251
  7. 21 11月, 2014 1 次提交
  9. 20 11月, 2014 5 次提交
  11. 19 11月, 2014 5 次提交
    • I
      drm/i915: disable rps irqs earlier during suspend/unload · 2eb5252e
      由 Imre Deak 提交于 
      After the previous patch RPS disabling doesn't depend any more on the
first level interrupts being disabled, so we can move it everywhere
earlier. Doing so let's us think about the uninitialization steps
afterwards independently of any asynchronous RPS events that can happen
atm. It also makes the system/runtime suspend time RPS disabling more
uniform. Finally this gets rid of the WARN in
intel_suspend_gt_powersave(), which we can hit if a final RPS work runs
after we disabled the first level interrupts.

Testcase: igt/pm_rpm
Reference: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=82939Signed-off-by: NImre Deak <imre.deak@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: NPaulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: NDaniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
      2eb5252e
    • I
      drm/i915: sanitize rps irq disabling · d4d70aa5
      由 Imre Deak 提交于 
      When disabling the RPS interrupts there is a tricky dependency between
the thread disabling the interrupts, the RPS interrupt handler and the
corresponding RPS work. The RPS work can reenable the interrupts, so
there is no straightforward order in the disabling thread to (1) make
sure that any RPS work is flushed and to (2) disable all RPS
interrupts. Currently this is solved by masking the interrupts using two
separate mask registers (first level display IMR and PM IMR) and doing
the disabling when all first level interrupts are disabled.

This works, but the requirement to run with all first level interrupts
disabled is unnecessary making the suspend / unload time ordering of RPS
disabling wrt. other unitialization steps difficult and error prone.
Removing this restriction allows us to disable RPS early during suspend
/ unload and forget about it for the rest of the sequence. By adding a
more explicit method for avoiding the above race, it also becomes easier
to prove its correctness. Finally currently we can hit the WARN in
snb_update_pm_irq(), when a final RPS work runs with the first level
interrupts already disabled. This won't lead to any problem (due to the
separate interrupt masks), but with the change in this and the next
patch we can get rid of the WARN, while leaving it in place for other
scenarios.

To address the above points, add a new RPS interrupts_enabled flag and
use this during RPS disabling to avoid requeuing the RPS work and
reenabling of the RPS interrupts. Since the interrupt disabling happens
now in intel_suspend_gt_powersave(), we will disable RPS interrupts
explicitly during suspend (and not just through the first level mask),
but there is no problem doing so, it's also more consistent and allows
us to unify more of the RPS disabling during suspend and unload time in
the next patch.

v2/v3:
- rebase on patch "drm/i915: move rps irq disable one level up" in the
  patchset
Signed-off-by: NImre Deak <imre.deak@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: NPaulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: NDaniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
      d4d70aa5
    • I
      drm/i915: sanitize rps irq enabling · 3cc134e3
      由 Imre Deak 提交于 
      Atm we first enable the RPS interrupts then we clear any pending ones.
By this we could lose an interrupt arriving after we unmasked it. This
may not be a problem as the caller should handle such a race, but logic
still calls for the opposite order. Also we can delay enabling the
interrupts until after all the RPS initialization is ready with the
following order:

1. disable left-over RPS (earlier via intel_uncore_sanitize)
2. clear any pending RPS interrupts
3. initialize RPS
4. enable RPS interrupts

This also allows us to do the 2. and 4. step the same way for all
platforms, so let's follow this order to simplifying things.

Also make sure any queued interrupts are also cleared.

v2:
- rebase on the GEN9 patches where we don't support RPS yet, so we
  musn't enable RPS interrupts on it (Paulo)
v3:
- avoid enabling RPS interrupts on GEN>9 too (Paulo)
- clarify the RPS init sequence in the log message (Chris)
- add POSTING_READ to gen6_reset_rps_interrupts() (Paulo)
- WARN if any PM_IIR bits are set in gen6_enable_rps_interrupts()
  (Paulo)
Signed-off-by: NImre Deak <imre.deak@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: NPaulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: NDaniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
      3cc134e3
    • I
      drm/i915: move rps irq disable one level up · e534770a
      由 Imre Deak 提交于 
      We disable the RPS interrupts for all platforms at the same spot, so
move it one level up in the callstack to simplify things.

No functional change.

v2:
- rebase on the GEN9 patches where RPS isn't supported yet, so we don't
  need to disable RPS interrupts on it (Paulo)
v3:
- avoid disabling the interrupts on GEN>9 too (Paulo)
Signed-off-by: NImre Deak <imre.deak@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: NPaulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: NDaniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
      e534770a
    • T
      drm/i915: Extend pcode mailbox interface · 151a49d0
      由 Tom O'Rourke 提交于 
      In sandybridge_pcode_read and sandybridge_pcode_write,
extend the mbox parameter from u8 to u32.

On Haswell and Sandybridge, bits 7:0 encode the mailbox
command and bits 28:8 are used for address control for
specific commands.

Based on suggestion from Ville Syrjälä.
Signed-off-by: NTom O'Rourke <Tom.O'Rourke@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: NVille Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: NDaniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
      151a49d0
  13. 17 11月, 2014 8 次提交
  15. 14 11月, 2014 7 次提交
  17. 08 11月, 2014 11 次提交