On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 10:28:55PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 11:21:05AM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> > More registers we can't write.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Ben Widawsky <b...@bwidawsk.net>
> > ---
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_suspend.c | 57
> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
> > 1 file changed, 41 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_suspend.c
> > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_suspend.c
> > index c1e02b0..dd5766a 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_suspend.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_suspend.c
> > @@ -333,11 +333,19 @@ int i915_save_state(struct drm_device *dev)
> >
> > mutex_lock(&dev->struct_mutex);
> >
> > - i915_save_display(dev);
> > + if (!HAS_PCH_NOP(dev))
> > + i915_save_display(dev);
>
> This here looks a bit funny - imo it's better to move this check to the
> only two places where we still touch registers in the kms case: lvds & pp
> restore.
I had something like this originally, except I also can't touch the
backlight registers (even though they're not in a bad range).
In an earlier patch you asked me to move the check up in the callchain,
and I liked that idea. It seems to me here the same logic applies, we
never care about any of the display registers. If you feel strongly
about it though, I will change it. Please correct me if I misunderstood
your request.
>
> >
> > if (!drm_core_check_feature(dev, DRIVER_MODESET)) {
> > /* Interrupt state */
> > - if (HAS_PCH_SPLIT(dev)) {
> > + if (HAS_PCH_NOP(dev)) {
> > + dev_priv->regfile.saveDEIER = I915_READ(DEIER);
> > + dev_priv->regfile.saveDEIMR = I915_READ(DEIMR);
> > + dev_priv->regfile.saveGTIER = I915_READ(GTIER);
> > + dev_priv->regfile.saveGTIMR = I915_READ(GTIMR);
> > + dev_priv->regfile.saveMCHBAR_RENDER_STANDBY =
> > + I915_READ(RSTDBYCTL);
> > + } else if (HAS_PCH_SPLIT(dev)) {
> > dev_priv->regfile.saveDEIER = I915_READ(DEIER);
> > dev_priv->regfile.saveDEIMR = I915_READ(DEIMR);
> > dev_priv->regfile.saveGTIER = I915_READ(GTIER);
> > @@ -361,13 +369,18 @@ int i915_save_state(struct drm_device *dev)
> > /* Memory Arbitration state */
> > dev_priv->regfile.saveMI_ARB_STATE = I915_READ(MI_ARB_STATE);
> >
> > - /* Scratch space */
> > - for (i = 0; i < 16; i++) {
> > - dev_priv->regfile.saveSWF0[i] = I915_READ(SWF00 + (i << 2));
> > - dev_priv->regfile.saveSWF1[i] = I915_READ(SWF10 + (i << 2));
> > + if (!HAS_PCH_NOP(dev)) {
> > + /* Scratch space */
> > + for (i = 0; i < 16; i++) {
> > + dev_priv->regfile.saveSWF0[i] =
> > + I915_READ(SWF00 + (i << 2));
> > + dev_priv->regfile.saveSWF1[i] =
> > + I915_READ(SWF10 + (i << 2));
> > + }
> > + for (i = 0; i < 3; i++)
> > + dev_priv->regfile.saveSWF2[i] =
> > + I915_READ(SWF30 + (i << 2));
>
> Blergh, I hate those registers, and I have no idea where we actually need
> to restore them for kms. Can you please also add a big "XXX: Do we really
> need this for kms?" comment in the scratch space block?
>
> > }
> > - for (i = 0; i < 3; i++)
> > - dev_priv->regfile.saveSWF2[i] = I915_READ(SWF30 + (i << 2));
> >
> > mutex_unlock(&dev->struct_mutex);
> >
> > @@ -383,11 +396,17 @@ int i915_restore_state(struct drm_device *dev)
> >
> > mutex_lock(&dev->struct_mutex);
> >
> > - i915_restore_display(dev);
> > + if (!HAS_PCH_NOP(dev))
> > + i915_restore_display(dev);
> >
> > if (!drm_core_check_feature(dev, DRIVER_MODESET)) {
> > /* Interrupt state */
> > - if (HAS_PCH_SPLIT(dev)) {
> > + if (HAS_PCH_NOP(dev)) {
> > + I915_WRITE(DEIER, dev_priv->regfile.saveDEIER);
> > + I915_WRITE(DEIMR, dev_priv->regfile.saveDEIMR);
> > + I915_WRITE(GTIER, dev_priv->regfile.saveGTIER);
> > + I915_WRITE(GTIMR, dev_priv->regfile.saveGTIMR);
> > + } else if (HAS_PCH_SPLIT(dev)) {
> > I915_WRITE(DEIER, dev_priv->regfile.saveDEIER);
> > I915_WRITE(DEIMR, dev_priv->regfile.saveDEIMR);
> > I915_WRITE(GTIER, dev_priv->regfile.saveGTIER);
> > @@ -407,16 +426,22 @@ int i915_restore_state(struct drm_device *dev)
> > /* Memory arbitration state */
> > I915_WRITE(MI_ARB_STATE, dev_priv->regfile.saveMI_ARB_STATE |
> > 0xffff0000);
> >
> > - for (i = 0; i < 16; i++) {
> > - I915_WRITE(SWF00 + (i << 2), dev_priv->regfile.saveSWF0[i]);
> > - I915_WRITE(SWF10 + (i << 2), dev_priv->regfile.saveSWF1[i]);
> > + if (!HAS_PCH_NOP(dev)) {
> > + for (i = 0; i < 16; i++) {
> > + I915_WRITE(SWF00 + (i << 2),
> > + dev_priv->regfile.saveSWF0[i]);
> > + I915_WRITE(SWF10 + (i << 2),
> > + dev_priv->regfile.saveSWF1[i]);
> > + }
> > + for (i = 0; i < 3; i++)
> > + I915_WRITE(SWF30 + (i << 2),
> > + dev_priv->regfile.saveSWF2[i]);
> > }
> > - for (i = 0; i < 3; i++)
> > - I915_WRITE(SWF30 + (i << 2), dev_priv->regfile.saveSWF2[i]);
> >
> > mutex_unlock(&dev->struct_mutex);
> >
> > - intel_i2c_reset(dev);
> > + if (!HAS_PCH_NOP(dev))
> > + intel_i2c_reset(dev);
> >
> > return 0;
> > }
> > --
> > 1.8.1.5
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Intel-gfx mailing list
> > Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
> > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
>
> --
> Daniel Vetter
> Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
> +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch
--
Ben Widawsky, Intel Open Source Technology Center
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
