Hi Matt,
> > We occasionally see the PCI device in a non-accessible state at the
> > point the driver is loaded. When this happens, all BAR accesses will
> > read back as 0xFFFFFFFF. Rather than reading registers and
> > misinterpreting their (invalid) values, let's specifically check for
> > 0xFFFFFFFF in a register that cannot have that value to see if the
> > device is accessible.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Matt Roper <matthew.d.ro...@intel.com>
> > Cc: Mika Kuoppala <mika.kuopp...@linux.intel.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Andi Shyti <andi.sh...@linux.intel.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.c | 35 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > 1 file changed, 35 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.c
> > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.c
> > index e1e1f34490c8e..0b69081d6d285 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.c
> > @@ -2602,11 +2602,46 @@ static int uncore_forcewake_init(struct
> > intel_uncore *uncore)
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
> > +static int sanity_check_mmio_access(struct intel_uncore *uncore)
> > +{
> > + struct drm_i915_private *i915 = uncore->i915;
> > + int ret;
> > +
> > + if (GRAPHICS_VER(i915) < 8)
> > + return 0;
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * Sanitycheck that MMIO access to the device is working properly. If
> > + * the CPU is unable to communcate with a PCI device, BAR reads will
> > + * return 0xFFFFFFFF. Let's make sure the device isn't in this state
> > + * before we start trying to access registers.
> > + *
> > + * We use the primary GT's forcewake register as our guinea pig since
> > + * it's been around since HSW and it's a masked register so the upper
> > + * 16 bits can never read back as 1's if device access is operating
> > + * properly.
> > + *
> > + * If MMIO isn't working, we'll wait up to 2 seconds to see if it
> > + * recovers, then give up.
> > + */
> > + ret = intel_wait_for_register_fw(uncore, FORCEWAKE_MT, 0, 0, 2000000);
>
> It looks like you lost the check for 0xFFFFFFFF specifically. In fact
> with a mask/value of 0, isn't this always going to just always pass
> immediately?
uh... yes... sorry, I just got confused and lost track of the
goal of the patch.
Sorry, then please ignore... I don't see then how
intel_wait_for_register_fw() can be used with a '!='.
Please, ignore this v2.
Thanks and sorry, again,
Andi
> We don't know what the value of this register will be (there may or may
> not be some bits set), but we need to make sure that it isn't 0xFFFFFFFF
> because that means we're not even truly accessing the register, just
> hitting a PCI BAR read failure.
>
>
> Matt
>
> > + if (ret == -ETIMEDOUT) {
> > + drm_err(&i915->drm, "Device is non-operational; MMIO access
> > returns 0xFFFFFFFF!\n");
> > + return -EIO;
> > + }
> > +
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > int intel_uncore_init_mmio(struct intel_uncore *uncore)
> > {
> > struct drm_i915_private *i915 = uncore->i915;
> > int ret;
> >
> > + ret = sanity_check_mmio_access(uncore);
> > + if (ret)
> > + return ret;
> > +
> > /*
> > * The boot firmware initializes local memory and assesses its health.
> > * If memory training fails, the punit will have been instructed to
> > --
> > 2.39.2
> >
>
> --
> Matt Roper
> Graphics Software Engineer
> Linux GPU Platform Enablement
> Intel Corporation
