On Mon, 28 Nov 2022 17:21:46 -0800, Umesh Nerlige Ramappa wrote:
>
> +/*
> + * Ref: 14010536224:
> + * 0x20cc is repurposed on MTL, so use a separate array for MTL.
Wondering if it was WAIT_FOR_RC6_EXIT (seen in gen12_oa_mux_regs) which
moved elsewhere and if that needs to be added to the array below too?
> + */
> +static const struct i915_range mtl_oa_mux_regs[] = {
> + { .start = 0x0d00, .end = 0x0d04 }, /* RPM_CONFIG[0-1] */
> + { .start = 0x0d0c, .end = 0x0d2c }, /* NOA_CONFIG[0-8] */
> + { .start = 0x9840, .end = 0x9840 }, /* GDT_CHICKEN_BITS */
> + { .start = 0x9884, .end = 0x9888 }, /* NOA_WRITE */
> +};
> +
> static bool gen7_is_valid_b_counter_addr(struct i915_perf *perf, u32 addr)
> {
> return reg_in_range_table(addr, gen7_oa_b_counters);
> @@ -4349,7 +4372,10 @@ static bool xehp_is_valid_b_counter_addr(struct
> i915_perf *perf, u32 addr)
>
> static bool gen12_is_valid_mux_addr(struct i915_perf *perf, u32 addr)
> {
> - return reg_in_range_table(addr, gen12_oa_mux_regs);
> + if (IS_METEORLAKE(perf->i915))
> + return reg_in_range_table(addr, mtl_oa_mux_regs);
> + else
> + return reg_in_range_table(addr, gen12_oa_mux_regs);
But otherwise this is:
Reviewed-by: Ashutosh Dixit <ashutosh.di...@intel.com>
If you decide to split the patches, please add my R-b on all the split patches.
