Skip to content

K
Kernel

openeuler / Kernel
接近 2 年 前同步成功

通知 8
Star 0
Fork 0
K
Kernel
切换分支/标签
  1. 22 9月, 2021 1 次提交
  3. 26 8月, 2021 1 次提交
  5. 31 7月, 2021 1 次提交
  7. 23 7月, 2021 1 次提交
  9. 22 7月, 2021 3 次提交
    • M
      drm/i915: Make display workaround upper bounds exclusive · 46b0d709
      由 Matt Roper 提交于 
      Workarounds are documented in the bspec with an exclusive upper bound
(i.e., a "fixed" stepping that no longer needs the workaround).  This
makes our driver's use of an inclusive upper bound for stepping ranges
confusing; the differing notation between code and bspec makes it very
easy for mistakes to creep in.

Let's switch the upper bound of our IS_{GT,DISP}_STEP macros over to use
an exclusive upper bound like the bspec does.  This also has the benefit
of helping make sure workarounds are properly handled for new minor
steppings that show up (e.g., an A1 between the A0 and B0 we already
knew about) --- if the new intermediate stepping pulls in hardware fixes
early, there will be an update to the workaround definition which lets
us know we need to change our code.  If the new stepping does not pull a
hardware fix earlier, then the new stepping will already be captured
properly by the "[begin, fix)" range in the code.

We'll probably need to be extra vigilant in code review of new
workarounds for the near future to make sure developers notice the new
semantics of workaround bounds.  But we just migrated a bunch of our
platforms from the IS_REVID bounds over to IS_{GT,DISP}_STEP, so people
are already adjusting to the new macros and now is a good time to make
this change too.

[mattrope: Split out display changes to apply through intel-next tree]
Signed-off-by: NMatt Roper <matthew.d.roper@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: NJosé Roberto de Souza <jose.souza@intel.com>
Link: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/20210717051426.4120328-8-matthew.d.roper@intel.com
      46b0d709
    • M
      drm/i915: Make GT workaround upper bounds exclusive · 6b73a7f3
      由 Matt Roper 提交于 
      Workarounds are documented in the bspec with an exclusive upper bound
(i.e., a "fixed" stepping that no longer needs the workaround).  This
makes our driver's use of an inclusive upper bound for stepping ranges
confusing; the differing notation between code and bspec makes it very
easy for mistakes to creep in.

Let's switch the upper bound of our IS_{GT,DISP}_STEP macros over to use
an exclusive upper bound like the bspec does.  This also has the benefit
of helping make sure workarounds are properly handled for new minor
steppings that show up (e.g., an A1 between the A0 and B0 we already
knew about) --- if the new intermediate stepping pulls in hardware fixes
early, there will be an update to the workaround definition which lets
us know we need to change our code.  If the new stepping does not pull a
hardware fix earlier, then the new stepping will already be captured
properly by the "[begin, fix)" range in the code.

We'll probably need to be extra vigilant in code review of new
workarounds for the near future to make sure developers notice the new
semantics of workaround bounds.  But we just migrated a bunch of our
platforms from the IS_REVID bounds over to IS_{GT,DISP}_STEP, so people
are already adjusting to the new macros and now is a good time to make
this change too.

[mattrope: Split out GT changes to apply through gt-next tree]
Signed-off-by: NMatt Roper <matthew.d.roper@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: NJosé Roberto de Souza <jose.souza@intel.com>
Link: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/20210717051426.4120328-8-matthew.d.roper@intel.com
      6b73a7f3
    • M
      drm/i915: Program DFR enable/disable as a GT workaround · 1e1824de
      由 Matt Roper 提交于 
      DFR programming (which we enable as an optimization on gen11, but must
ensure is disabled on gen12) should be handled as a GT workaround rather
than clock gating initialization.  This will ensure that the programming
of these registers is verified with our typical workaround checks.
Signed-off-by: NMatt Roper <matthew.d.roper@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: NJosé Roberto de Souza <jose.souza@intel.com>
Link: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/20210717051426.4120328-4-matthew.d.roper@intel.com
      1e1824de
  11. 15 7月, 2021 1 次提交
  13. 14 7月, 2021 1 次提交
  15. 26 6月, 2021 2 次提交
  17. 25 6月, 2021 1 次提交
  19. 16 6月, 2021 1 次提交
  21. 09 6月, 2021 1 次提交
  23. 07 6月, 2021 1 次提交
  25. 04 6月, 2021 1 次提交
  27. 20 5月, 2021 4 次提交
  29. 15 5月, 2021 2 次提交
  31. 06 5月, 2021 1 次提交
  33. 28 4月, 2021 1 次提交
    • L
      Fix misc new gcc warnings · e7c6e405
      由 Linus Torvalds 提交于 
      It seems like Fedora 34 ends up enabling a few new gcc warnings, notably
"-Wstringop-overread" and "-Warray-parameter".

Both of them cause what seem to be valid warnings in the kernel, where
we have array size mismatches in function arguments (that are no longer
just silently converted to a pointer to element, but actually checked).

This fixes most of the trivial ones, by making the function declaration
match the function definition, and in the case of intel_pm.c, removing
the over-specified array size from the argument declaration.

At least one 'stringop-overread' warning remains in the i915 driver, but
that one doesn't have the same obvious trivial fix, and may or may not
actually be indicative of a bug.

[ It was a mistake to upgrade one of my machines to Fedora 34 while
  being busy with the merge window, but if this is the extent of the
  compiler upgrade problems, things are better than usual    - Linus ]
Signed-off-by: NLinus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
      e7c6e405
  35. 21 4月, 2021 5 次提交
  37. 20 4月, 2021 1 次提交
    • J
      drm/i915/pm: Make the wm parameter of print_wm_latency a pointer · c6deb5e9
      由 Jason Ekstrand 提交于 
      This fixes the following build error with GCC 11:

    In function ‘snb_wm_latency_quirk’,
        inlined from ‘ilk_setup_wm_latency’ at drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c:3109:3,
        inlined from ‘intel_init_pm’ at drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c:7695:3:
    drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c:3058:9: error: ‘intel_print_wm_latency’ reading 16 bytes from a region of size 10 [-Werror=stringop-overread]
     3058 |         intel_print_wm_latency(dev_priv, "Primary", dev_priv->wm.pri_latency);
          |         ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c: In function ‘intel_init_pm’:
    drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c:3058:9: note: referencing argument 3 of type ‘const u16 *’ {aka ‘const short unsigned int *’}
    drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c:2995:13: note: in a call to function ‘intel_print_wm_latency’
     2995 | static void intel_print_wm_latency(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
          |             ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

As far as I can tell, we don't actually need 8 elements except on SKL
and that uses dev_priv->wm.skl_latency which has enough.
Signed-off-by: NJason Ekstrand <jason@jlekstrand.net>
Reviewed-by: NRodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
Link: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/20210413173259.472405-1-jason@jlekstrand.netSigned-off-by: NRodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
      c6deb5e9
  39. 14 4月, 2021 2 次提交
    • L
      drm/i915/display: rename display version macros · 93e7e61e
      由 Lucas De Marchi 提交于 
      While converting the rest of the driver to use GRAPHICS_VER() and
MEDIA_VER(), following what was done for display, some discussions went
back on what we did for display:

	1) Why is the == comparison special that deserves a separate
	macro instead of just getting the version and comparing directly
	like is done for >, >=, <=?

	2) IS_DISPLAY_RANGE() is weird in that it omits the "_VER" for
	brevity. If we remove the current users of IS_DISPLAY_VER(), we
	could actually repurpose it for a range check

With (1) there could be an advantage if we used gen_mask since multiple
conditionals be combined by the compiler in a single and instruction and
check the result. However a) INTEL_GEN() doesn't use the mask since it
would make the code bigger everywhere else and b) in the cases it made
sense, it also made sense to convert to the _RANGE() variant.

So here we repurpose IS_DISPLAY_VER() to work with a [ from, to ] range
like was the IS_DISPLAY_RANGE() and convert the current IS_DISPLAY_VER()
users to use == and != operators. Aside from the definition changes,
this was done by the following semantic patch:

	@@ expression dev_priv, E1; @@
	- !IS_DISPLAY_VER(dev_priv, E1)
	+ DISPLAY_VER(dev_priv) != E1

	@@ expression dev_priv, E1; @@
	- IS_DISPLAY_VER(dev_priv, E1)
	+ DISPLAY_VER(dev_priv) == E1

	@@ expression dev_priv, from, until; @@
	- IS_DISPLAY_RANGE(dev_priv, from, until)
	+ IS_DISPLAY_VER(dev_priv, from, until)

Cc: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com>
Cc: Matt Roper <matthew.d.roper@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: NJani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: NLucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@intel.com>
[Jani: Minor conflict resolve while applying.]
Signed-off-by: NJani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com>
Link: http://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/20210413051002.92589-4-lucas.demarchi@intel.com
      93e7e61e
    • M
      drm/i915/display: Eliminate IS_GEN9_{BC,LP} · 2446e1d6
      由 Matt Roper 提交于 
      Now that we've eliminated INTEL_GEN(), IS_GEN_RANGE(), etc. from the
display code, we should also kill off our use of the IS_GEN9_* macros
too.  We'll do the conversion manually this time instead of using
Coccinelle since the most logical substitution can depend heavily on the
code context, and sometimes we can keep the code simpler if we make
additional adjustments such as swapping the order of if/else arms.

v2:
 - Restore a lost negation in intel_pll_is_valid().

Cc: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: NMatt Roper <matthew.d.roper@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: NRadhakrishna Sripada <radhakrishna.sripada@intel.com>
Link: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/20210407203945.1432531-1-matthew.d.roper@intel.com
(cherry picked from commit 70bfb307)
[Jani: cherry picked to topic branch to reduce conflicts]
Signed-off-by: NJani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com>
      2446e1d6
  41. 13 4月, 2021 1 次提交
  43. 12 4月, 2021 1 次提交
  45. 09 4月, 2021 1 次提交
  47. 08 4月, 2021 1 次提交
  49. 29 3月, 2021 2 次提交
  51. 26 3月, 2021 1 次提交
  53. 24 3月, 2021 1 次提交
    • M
      drm/i915/display: Simplify GLK display version tests · 2b5a4562
      由 Matt Roper 提交于 
      GLK has always been a bit of a special case since it reports INTEL_GEN()
as 9, but has version 10 display IP.  Now we can properly represent the
display version as 10 and simplify the display generation tests
throughout the display code.

Aside from manually adding the version to the glk_info structure, the
rest of this patch is generated with a Coccinelle semantic patch.  Note
that we also need to switch any code that matches gen10 today but *not*
GLK to be CNL-specific:

        @@ expression dev_priv; @@
        - DISPLAY_VER(dev_priv) > 9
        + DISPLAY_VER(dev_priv) >= 10

        @@ expression dev_priv, E; @@
        (
        - DISPLAY_VER(dev_priv) >= 10 && E
        + (DISPLAY_VER(dev_priv) >= 11 || IS_CANNONLAKE(dev_priv)) && E
        |
        - DISPLAY_VER(dev_priv) >= 10
        + DISPLAY_VER(dev_priv) >= 11 || IS_CANNONLAKE(dev_priv)
        |
        - IS_DISPLAY_RANGE(dev_priv, 10, E)
        + IS_DISPLAY_RANGE(dev_priv, 11, E) || IS_CANNONLAKE(dev_priv)
        )

        @@ expression dev_priv, E, E2; @@
        (
        - (IS_CANNONLAKE(dev_priv) || IS_GEMINILAKE(dev_priv))
        + IS_DISPLAY_VER(dev_priv, 10)
        |
        - E || IS_CANNONLAKE(dev_priv) || IS_GEMINILAKE(dev_priv)
        + E || IS_DISPLAY_VER(dev_priv, 10)
        |
        - (IS_GEMINILAKE(dev_priv) || IS_CANNONLAKE(dev_priv))
        + IS_DISPLAY_VER(dev_priv, 10)
        |
        - IS_GEMINILAKE(dev_priv) || E || IS_CANNONLAKE(dev_priv)
        + E || IS_DISPLAY_VER(dev_priv, 10)
        |
        - E || IS_GEMINILAKE(dev_priv) || E2 || IS_CANNONLAKE(dev_priv)
        + E || E2 || IS_DISPLAY_VER(dev_priv, 10)
        |
        - (IS_DISPLAY_VER(dev_priv, 10) || IS_GEMINILAKE(dev_priv))
        + IS_DISPLAY_VER(dev_priv, 10)
        |
        - (IS_GEMINILAKE(dev_priv) || IS_DISPLAY_VER(dev_priv, 10))
        + IS_DISPLAY_VER(dev_priv, 10)
        )

        @@ expression dev_priv; @@
        - (IS_DISPLAY_VER(dev_priv, 9) && !IS_GEMINILAKE(dev_priv))
        + IS_DISPLAY_VER(dev_priv, 9)

        @@ expression dev_priv; @@
        (
        - !(DISPLAY_VER(dev_priv) >= 11 || IS_DISPLAY_VER(dev_priv, 10))
        + DISPLAY_VER(dev_priv) < 10
        |
        - (DISPLAY_VER(dev_priv) >= 11 || IS_DISPLAY_VER(dev_priv, 10))
        + DISPLAY_VER(dev_priv) >= 10
        )

        @@ expression dev_priv, E; @@
        - E || DISPLAY_VER(dev_priv) >= 11 || IS_DISPLAY_VER(dev_priv, 10)
        + E || DISPLAY_VER(dev_priv) >= 10

        @@ expression dev_priv, E; @@
        - (IS_DISPLAY_RANGE(dev_priv, 11, E) || IS_DISPLAY_VER(dev_priv, 10))
        + IS_DISPLAY_RANGE(dev_priv, 10, E)

        @@ expression dev_priv; @@
        (
        - DISPLAY_VER(dev_priv) >= 11 || IS_CANNONLAKE(dev_priv) || IS_GEN9_LP(dev_priv)
        + DISPLAY_VER(dev_priv) >= 10 || IS_GEN9_LP(dev_priv)
        |
        - IS_GEN9_LP(dev_priv) || DISPLAY_VER(dev_priv) >= 11 || IS_CANNONLAKE(dev_priv)
        + IS_GEN9_LP(dev_priv) || DISPLAY_VER(dev_priv) >= 10
        )

        @@ expression dev_priv, E; @@
        - !(DISPLAY_VER(dev_priv) >= E)
        + DISPLAY_VER(dev_priv) < E

v2:
 - Convert gen10 conditions that don't include GLK into CNL conditions.
   (Ville)

v3:
 - Rework coccinelle rules so that "ver>=10" turns into "ver>=11||is_cnl." (Ville)

v3.1:
 - Manually re-add the ".display.version = 10" to glk_info after
   regenerating patch via Coccinelle.

v4:
 - Also apply cocci rules to intel_pm.c and i915_irq.c!  (CI)

Cc: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: NMatt Roper <matthew.d.roper@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: NVille Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
Link: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/20210322233840.4056851-1-matthew.d.roper@intel.com
      2b5a4562