Hi Matt,
On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 04:03:21PM +, Matthew Auld wrote:
> At the very least, we have some tests that force the BAR size for
> testing purposes, which would result in different BAR size with
> stolen-lmem vs normal lmem, since the BAR is only resized as part of the
> normal lmem probing.
>
> Signed-off-by: Matthew Auld
> Cc: Andrzej Hajda
> Cc: Nirmoy Das
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_driver.c | 10 +++---
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_driver.c
> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_driver.c
> index cf1c0970ecb4..320a4f861659 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_driver.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_driver.c
> @@ -489,13 +489,17 @@ static int i915_driver_hw_probe(struct drm_i915_private
> *dev_priv)
> if (ret)
> goto err_ggtt;
>
> - ret = intel_memory_regions_hw_probe(dev_priv);
> + /*
> + * Make sure we probe lmem before we probe stolen-lmem. The BAR size
> + * might be different due to bar resizing.
> + */
uh... right! Good catch!
Reviewed-by: Andi Shyti
Thanks,
Andi
> + ret = intel_gt_tiles_init(dev_priv);
> if (ret)
> goto err_ggtt;
>
> - ret = intel_gt_tiles_init(dev_priv);
> + ret = intel_memory_regions_hw_probe(dev_priv);
> if (ret)
> - goto err_mem_regions;
> + goto err_ggtt;
>
> ret = i915_ggtt_enable_hw(dev_priv);
> if (ret) {
> --
> 2.39.1
