On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 06:31:46PM +0000, Srivatsa, Anusha wrote: > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Chris Wilson [mailto:ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk] > >Sent: Friday, December 16, 2016 8:31 AM > >To: Hiler, Arkadiusz <arkadiusz.hi...@intel.com> > >Cc: Srivatsa, Anusha <anusha.sriva...@intel.com>; intel- > >g...@lists.freedesktop.org > >Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 8/8] drm/i915/get_params: Add HuC status to > >getparams > > > >On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 05:21:38PM +0100, Arkadiusz Hiler wrote: > >> On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 04:12:36PM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote: > >> > On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 03:43:46PM +0100, Arkadiusz Hiler wrote: > >> > > On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 10:42:53PM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote: > >> > > > On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 02:29:50PM -0800, anushasr wrote: > >> > > > > From: Peter Antoine <peter.anto...@intel.com> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > This patch will allow for getparams to return the status of the > >> > > > > HuC. > >> > > > > As the HuC has to be validated by the GuC this patch uses the > >> > > > > validated status to show when the HuC is loaded and ready for > >> > > > > use. You cannot use the loaded status as with the GuC as the > >> > > > > HuC is verified after it is loaded and is not usable until it is > >> > > > > verified. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > v2: removed the forewakes as the registers are already force-woken. > >> > > > > (T.Ursulin) > >> > > > > v4: rebased. > >> > > > > v5: rebased on top of drm-tip. > >> > > > > v6: rebased. Removed any reference to intel_huc.h > >> > > > > v7: rebased. Rename I915_PARAM_HAS_HUC to > >I915_PARAM_HUC_STATUS. > >> > > > > Remove intel_is_huc_valid() since it is used only in one place. > >> > > > > Put the case of I915_PARAM_HAS_HUC() in the right place. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Signed-off-by: Peter Antoine <peter.anto...@intel.com> > >> > > > > Reviewed-by: Arkadiusz Hiler <arkadiusz.hi...@intel.com> > >> > > > > --- > >> > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c | 4 ++++ > >> > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_huc_loader.c | 1 - > >> > > > > include/uapi/drm/i915_drm.h | 1 + > >> > > > > 3 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > >> > > > > > >> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c > >> > > > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c index 85a47c2..0bc016d > >> > > > > 100644 > >> > > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c > >> > > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c > >> > > > > @@ -49,6 +49,7 @@ > >> > > > > #include "i915_trace.h" > >> > > > > #include "i915_vgpu.h" > >> > > > > #include "intel_drv.h" > >> > > > > +#include "intel_uc.h" > >> > > > > > >> > > > > static struct drm_driver driver; > >> > > > > > >> > > > > @@ -315,6 +316,9 @@ static int i915_getparam(struct drm_device > >*dev, void *data, > >> > > > > case I915_PARAM_MIN_EU_IN_POOL: > >> > > > > value = INTEL_INFO(dev_priv)->sseu.min_eu_in_pool; > >> > > > > break; > >> > > > > + case I915_PARAM_HUC_STATUS: > >> > > > > + value = I915_READ(HUC_STATUS2) & > >HUC_FW_VERIFIED; > >> > > > > >> > > > Same question as last time: does the device need to be awake? We > >> > > > know is one of the GT power wells, so presumably we need an > >> > > > rpm_get/rpm_put as well to access the register. > >> > > > -Chris > >> > > > >> > > I get: > >> > > > >> > > [ 1588.570174] [drm:i915_huc_load_status_info [i915]] HUC_STATUS2 > >> > > PRE 24704 [ 1588.571285] [drm:intel_runtime_suspend [i915]] > >> > > Suspending device [ 1588.575768] [drm:intel_runtime_suspend > >> > > [i915]] Device suspended [ 1588.577156] > >> > > [drm:i915_huc_load_status_info [i915]] HUC_STATUS2 POST 24704 [ > >> > > 1588.578259] [drm:intel_runtime_resume [i915]] Resuming device > >> > > > >> > > consistently from: > >> > > > >> > > value = I915_READ(HUC_STATUS2); > >> > > DRM_DEBUG_DRIVER("HUC_STATUS2 PRE %d\n", value); > >> > > i915_pm_ops.runtime_suspend(dev_priv->drm.dev); > >> > > > >> > > value = I915_READ(HUC_STATUS2); > >> > > DRM_DEBUG_DRIVER("HUC_STATUS2 POST %d\n", value); > >> > > i915_pm_ops.runtime_resume(dev_priv->drm.dev); > >> > > >> > Also do the test with i915.mmio_debug=9999 -Chris > >> > >> Same effect. Works. > Thanks Arek for confirming. > > >Ok, then just mark up that we don't need rpm here so that we don't freak out > >in > >future scans for mmio access outside of rpm. > >-Chris > Chris, v2 as changed by Tvrtko suggests that forcewakes are removed since the > register is force waken. Are you suggesting that adding that rpm not being > required in the commit message will make things much more clearer?
No, if you are eschewing taking rpm around mmio access, I want that commented upon in the code so that it is visible the next time we do an audit for rpm abuse/misuse. -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
