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.