1. 19 10月, 2015 9 次提交
  2. 16 10月, 2015 1 次提交
  3. 15 10月, 2015 3 次提交
  4. 13 10月, 2015 18 次提交
  5. 10 10月, 2015 1 次提交
  6. 09 10月, 2015 8 次提交
    • M
      drm/i915: Partial revert of atomic watermark series · 261a27d1
      Matt Roper 提交于
      It's been reported that the atomic watermark series triggers some
      regressions on SKL, which we haven't been able to track down yet.  Let's
      temporarily revert these patches while we track down the root cause.
      
      This commit squashes the reverts of:
        76305b1a drm/i915: Calculate watermark configuration during atomic check (v2)
        a4611e44 drm/i915: Don't set plane visible during HW readout if CRTC is off
        a28170f3 drm/i915: Calculate ILK-style watermarks during atomic check (v3)
        de4a9f83 drm/i915: Calculate pipe watermarks into CRTC state (v3)
        de165e0b drm/i915: Refactor ilk_update_wm (v3)
      
      Reference: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/intel-gfx/2015-October/077190.html
      Cc: "Zanoni, Paulo R" <paulo.r.zanoni@intel.com>
      Cc: "Vetter, Daniel" <daniel.vetter@intel.com>
      Signed-off-by: NMatt Roper <matthew.d.roper@intel.com>
      Signed-off-by: NDaniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
      261a27d1
    • T
      drm/i915: Early exit from semaphore_waits_for for execlist mode. · 381e8ae3
      Tomas Elf 提交于
      When submitting semaphores in execlist mode the hang checker crashes in this
      function because it is only runnable in ring submission mode. The reason this
      is of particular interest to the TDR patch series is because we use semaphores
      as a mean to induce hangs during testing (which is the recommended way to
      induce hangs for gen8+). It's not clear how this is supposed to work in
      execlist mode since:
      
      1. This function requires a ring buffer.
      
      2. Retrieving a ring buffer in execlist mode requires us to retrieve the
      corresponding context, which we get from a request.
      
      3. Retieving a request from the hang checker is not straight-forward since that
      requires us to grab the struct_mutex in order to synchronize against the
      request retirement thread.
      
      4. Grabbing the struct_mutex from the hang checker is nothing that we will do
      since that puts us at risk of deadlock since a hung thread might be holding the
      struct_mutex already.
      
      Therefore it's not obvious how we're supposed to deal with this. For now, we're
      doing an early exit from this function, which avoids any kernel panic situation
      when running our own internal TDR ULT.
      
      * v2: (Chris Wilson)
      Turned the execlist mode check into a ringbuffer NULL check to make it more
      submission mode agnostic and less of a layering violation.
      Signed-off-by: NTomas Elf <tomas.elf@intel.com>
      Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
      Cc: Mika Kuoppala <mika.kuoppala@linux.intel.com>
      Signed-off-by: NDaniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
      381e8ae3
    • T
      drm/i915: Remove wrong warning from i915_gem_context_clean · 61fb5881
      Tvrtko Ursulin 提交于
      commit e9f24d5f
      Author: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>
      Date:   Mon Oct 5 13:26:36 2015 +0100
      
          drm/i915: Clean up associated VMAs on context destruction
      
      Introduced a wrong assumption that all contexts have a ppgtt
      instance. This is not true when full PPGTT is not active so
      remove the WARN_ON_ONCE from the context cleanup code.
      Signed-off-by: NTvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>
      Cc: Michel Thierry <michel.thierry@intel.com>
      Reviewed-by: NMichel Thierry <michel.thierry@intel.com>
      Signed-off-by: NDaniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
      61fb5881
    • V
      drm/i915: Determine the stolen memory base address on gen2 · 0ad98c74
      Ville Syrjälä 提交于
      There isn't an explicit stolen memory base register on gen2.
      Some old comment in the i915 code suggests we should get it via
      max_low_pfn_mapped, but that's clearly a bad idea on my MGM.
      
      The e820 map in said machine looks like this:
      [    0.000000] BIOS-e820: [mem 0x0000000000000000-0x000000000009f7ff] usable
      [    0.000000] BIOS-e820: [mem 0x000000000009f800-0x000000000009ffff] reserved
      [    0.000000] BIOS-e820: [mem 0x00000000000ce000-0x00000000000cffff] reserved
      [    0.000000] BIOS-e820: [mem 0x00000000000dc000-0x00000000000fffff] reserved
      [    0.000000] BIOS-e820: [mem 0x0000000000100000-0x000000001f6effff] usable
      [    0.000000] BIOS-e820: [mem 0x000000001f6f0000-0x000000001f6f7fff] ACPI data
      [    0.000000] BIOS-e820: [mem 0x000000001f6f8000-0x000000001f6fffff] ACPI NVS
      [    0.000000] BIOS-e820: [mem 0x000000001f700000-0x000000001fffffff] reserved
      [    0.000000] BIOS-e820: [mem 0x00000000fec10000-0x00000000fec1ffff] reserved
      [    0.000000] BIOS-e820: [mem 0x00000000ffb00000-0x00000000ffbfffff] reserved
      [    0.000000] BIOS-e820: [mem 0x00000000fff00000-0x00000000ffffffff] reserved
      
      That makes max_low_pfn_mapped = 1f6f0000, so assuming our stolen memory
      would start there would place it on top of some ACPI memory regions.
      So not a good idea as already stated.
      
      The 9MB region after the ACPI regions at 0x1f700000 however looks
      promising given that the macine reports the stolen memory size to be
      8MB. Looking at the PGTBL_CTL register, the GTT entries are at offset
      0x1fee00000, and given that the GTT entries occupy 128KB, it looks like
      the stolen memory could start at 0x1f700000 and the GTT entries would
      occupy the last 128KB of the stolen memory.
      
      After some more digging through chipset documentation, I've determined
      the BIOS first allocates space for something called TSEG (something to
      do with SMM) from the top of memory, and then it allocates the graphics
      stolen memory below that. Accordind to the chipset documentation TSEG
      has a fixed size of 1MB on 855. So that explains the top 1MB in the
      e820 region. And it also confirms that the GTT entries are in fact at
      the end of the the stolen memory region.
      
      Derive the stolen memory base address on gen2 the same as the BIOS does
      (TOM-TSEG_SIZE-stolen_size). There are a few differences between the
      registers on various gen2 chipsets, so a few different codepaths are
      required.
      
      865G is again bit more special since it seems to support enough memory
      to hit 4GB address space issues. This means the PCI allocations will
      also affect the location of the stolen memory. Fortunately there
      appears to be the TOUD register which may give us the correct answer
      directly. But the chipset docs are a bit unclear, so I'm not 100%
      sure that the graphics stolen memory is always the last thing the
      BIOS steals. Someone would need to verify it on a real system.
      
      I tested this on the my 830 and 855 machines, and so far everything
      looks peachy.
      
      v2: Rewrite to use the TOM-TSEG_SIZE-stolen_size and TOUD methods
      v3: Fix TSEG size for 830
      v4: Add missing 'else' (Chris)
      Tested-by: NChris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
      Signed-off-by: NVille Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
      Signed-off-by: NDaniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
      0ad98c74
    • P
      drm/i915: fix FBC buffer size checks · 856312ae
      Paulo Zanoni 提交于
      According to my experiments (and later confirmation from the hardware
      developers), the maximum sizes mentioned in the specification delimit
      how far in the buffer the hardware tracking can go. And the hardware
      calculates the size based on the plane address we provide - and the
      provided plane address might not be the real x:0,y:0 point due to the
      compute_page_offset() function.
      
      On platforms that do the x/y offset adjustment trick it will be really
      hard to reproduce a bug, but on the current SKL we can reproduce the
      bug with igt/kms_frontbuffer_tracking/fbc-farfromfence. With this
      patch, we'll go from "CRC assertion failure" to "FBC unexpectedly
      disabled", which is still a failure on the test suite but is not a
      perceived user bug - you will just not save as much power as you could
      if FBC is disabled.
      
      v2, rewrite patch after clarification from the Hadware guys:
        - Rename function so it's clear what the check is for.
        - Use the new intel_fbc_get_plane_source_sizes() function in order
          to get the proper sizes as seen by FBC.
      v3:
        - Rebase after the s/sizes/size/ on the previous patch.
        - Adjust comment wording (Ville).
        - s/used_/effective_/ (Ville).
      
      Testcase: igt/kms_frontbuffer_tracking/fbc-farfromfence (SKL)
      Reviewed-by: NVille Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
      Signed-off-by: NPaulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni@intel.com>
      Signed-off-by: NDaniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
      856312ae
    • P
      drm/i915: fix CFB size calculation · c4ffd409
      Paulo Zanoni 提交于
      We were considering the whole framebuffer height, but the spec says we
      should only consider the active display height size. There were still
      some unclear questions based on the spec, but the hardware guys
      clarified them for us. According to them:
      
      - CFB size = CFB stride * Number of lines FBC writes to CFB
      - CFB stride = plane stride / compression limit
      - Number of lines FBC writes to CFB = MIN(plane source height, maximum
        number of lines FBC writes to CFB)
      - Plane source height =
        - pipe source height (PIPE_SRCSZ register) (before SKL)
        - plane size register height (PLANE_SIZE register) (SKL+)
      - Maximum number of lines FBC writes to CFB =
        - plane source height (before HSW)
        - 2048 (HSW+)
      
      For the plane source height, I could just have made our code do
      I915_READ() in order to be more future proof, but since it's not cool
      to do register reads I decided to just recalculate the values we use
      when we actually write to those registers.
      
      With this patch, depending on your machine configuration, a lot of the
      kms_frontbuffer_tracking subtests that used to result in a SKIP due to
      not enough stolen memory still start resulting in a PASS.
      
      v2: Use the clipped src size instead of pipe_src_h (Ville).
      v3: Use the appropriate information provided by the hardware guys.
      v4: Bikesheds: s/sizes/size/, s/fb_cpp/cpp/ (Ville).
      v5: - Don't use crtc->config->pipe_src_x for BDW- (Ville).
          - Fix the register name written in the comment.
      Signed-off-by: NPaulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni@intel.com>
      Reviewed-by: NVille Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
      Signed-off-by: NDaniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
      c4ffd409
    • P
      drm/i915: remove pre-atomic check from SKL update_primary_plane · a42e5a23
      Paulo Zanoni 提交于
      The comment suggests the check was there for some non-fully-atomic
      case, and I couldn't find a case where we wouldn't correctly
      initialize plane_state, so remove the check.
      
      Let's leave a WARN there just in case.
      Signed-off-by: NPaulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni@intel.com>
      Acked-by: NVille Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
      Signed-off-by: NDaniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
      a42e5a23
    • P
      drm/i915: don't allocate fbcon from stolen memory if it's too big · 3badb49f
      Paulo Zanoni 提交于
      Technology has evolved and now we have eDP panels with 3200x1800
      resolution. In the meantime, the BIOS guys didn't change the default
      32mb for stolen memory. On top of that, we can't assume our users will
      be able to increase the default stolen memory size to more than 32mb -
      I'm not even sure all BIOSes allow that.
      
      So just the fbcon buffer alone eats 22mb of my stolen memroy, and due
      to the BDW/SKL restriction of not using the last 8mb of stolen memory,
      all that's left for FBC is 2mb! Since fbcon is not the coolest feature
      ever, I think it's better to save our precious stolen resource to FBC
      and the other guys.
      
      On the other hand, we really want to use as much stolen memory as
      possible, since on some older systems the stolen memory may be a
      considerable percentage of the total available memory.
      
      This patch tries to achieve a little balance using a simple heuristic:
      if the fbcon wants more than half of the available stolen memory,
      don't use stolen memory in order to leave some for FBC and the other
      features.
      
      The long term plan should be to implement a way to set priorities for
      stolen memory allocation and then evict low priority users when the
      high priority ones need the memory. While we still don't have that,
      let's try to make FBC usable with the simple solution.
      
      Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
      Signed-off-by: NPaulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni@intel.com>
      Reviewed-by: NJesse Barnes <jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org>
      Signed-off-by: NDaniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
      3badb49f