Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 01/53] drm/i915: Add "release id" version

2021-07-07 Thread Lucas De Marchi 

On Wed, Jul 07, 2021 at 11:34:36AM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:

On Tue, 06 Jul 2021, Lucas De Marchi  wrote:

On Mon, Jul 05, 2021 at 02:52:31PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:

On Fri, 02 Jul 2021, Tvrtko Ursulin  wrote:

On 01/07/2021 21:23, Matt Roper wrote:

From: Lucas De Marchi 

Besides the arch version returned by GRAPHICS_VER(), new platforms
contain a "release id" to make clear the difference from one platform to
another. Although for the first ones we may use them as if they were a


What does "first ones" refer to here?


major/minor version, that is not true for all platforms: we may have a
`release_id == n` that is closer to `n - 2` than to `n - 1`.


Hm this is a bit confusing. Is the sentence simply trying to say that,
as the release id number is growing, hw capabilities are not simply
accumulating but can be removed as well? Otherwise I am not sure how the
user of these macros is supposed to act on this sentence.


However the release id number is not defined by hardware until we start
using the GMD_ID register. For the platforms before that register is
useful we will set the values in software and we can set them as we
please. So the plan is to set them so we can group different features
under a single GRAPHICS_VER_FULL() check.

After GMD_ID is used, the usefulness of a "full version check" will be
greatly reduced and will be mostly used for deciding workarounds and a
few code paths. So it makes sense to keep it as a separate field from
graphics_ver.

Also, currently there is not much use for the release id in media and
display, so keep them out.

This is a mix of 2 independent changes: one by me and the other by Matt
Roper.

Cc: Matt Roper 
Signed-off-by: Lucas De Marchi 
Signed-off-by: Matt Roper 
---
  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h  | 6 ++
  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_device_info.c | 2 ++
  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_device_info.h | 2 ++
  3 files changed, 10 insertions(+)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
index 6dff4ca01241..9639800485b9 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
@@ -1258,11 +1258,17 @@ static inline struct drm_i915_private 
*pdev_to_i915(struct pci_dev *pdev)
   */
  #define IS_GEN(dev_priv, n)   (GRAPHICS_VER(dev_priv) == (n))

+#define IP_VER(ver, release)   ((ver) << 8 | (release))
+
  #define GRAPHICS_VER(i915)(INTEL_INFO(i915)->graphics_ver)
+#define GRAPHICS_VER_FULL(i915)
IP_VER(INTEL_INFO(i915)->graphics_ver, \
+  
INTEL_INFO(i915)->graphics_ver_release)
  #define IS_GRAPHICS_VER(i915, from, until) \
(GRAPHICS_VER(i915) >= (from) && GRAPHICS_VER(i915) <= (until))

  #define MEDIA_VER(i915)   (INTEL_INFO(i915)->media_ver)
+#define MEDIA_VER_FULL(i915)   IP_VER(INTEL_INFO(i915)->media_ver, \
+  
INTEL_INFO(i915)->media_ver_release)
  #define IS_MEDIA_VER(i915, from, until) \
(MEDIA_VER(i915) >= (from) && MEDIA_VER(i915) <= (until))

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_device_info.c 
b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_device_info.c
index 7eaa92fee421..e8ad14f002c1 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_device_info.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_device_info.c
@@ -97,7 +97,9 @@ void intel_device_info_print_static(const struct 
intel_device_info *info,
struct drm_printer *p)
  {
drm_printf(p, "graphics_ver: %u\n", info->graphics_ver);
+   drm_printf(p, "graphics_ver_release: %u\n", info->graphics_ver_release);


I get the VER and VER_FULL in the macros but could 'ver' and
'ver_release' here and in the code simply be renamed to 'ver'/'version'
and 'release'? Maybe it is just me but don't think I encountered the
term "version release" before.


Just bikeshedding here, but I thought of:

if (info->grapics_ver_release)
drm_printf(p, "graphics_ver: %u.%u\n", info->graphics_ver, 
info->graphics_ver_release);
else
drm_printf(p, "graphics_ver: %u\n", info->graphics_ver);


humn... a suggestion that I got internally a few week ago and I forgot
to update this was that this doesn't need to be abbreviated in debugfs
and could very well be:

drm_printf(p, "graphics version: %u\n", info->graphics_ver);
drm_printf(p, "graphics release: %u\n", info->graphics_ver_release);


Also, I thought "x_ver" and "x_ver_release" sounds a bit odd, perhaps
having "x_ver" and "x_rel" is more natural?


Not sure what direction to go now though. Maybe trying to put all
suggestions together:

if (info->graphics_rel)
drm_printf(p, "graphics version: %u.%u\n", info->graphics_ver, 
info->graphics_rel);
else
drm_printf(p, "graphics version: %u\n", info->graphics_ver);

One thing  I like is that doing `| grep "graphics version"`
gives all info you are searching for.


I'd like

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 01/53] drm/i915: Add "release id" version

2021-07-07 Thread Jani Nikula 
On Tue, 06 Jul 2021, Lucas De Marchi  wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 05, 2021 at 02:52:31PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
>>On Fri, 02 Jul 2021, Tvrtko Ursulin  wrote:
>>> On 01/07/2021 21:23, Matt Roper wrote:
 From: Lucas De Marchi 

 Besides the arch version returned by GRAPHICS_VER(), new platforms
 contain a "release id" to make clear the difference from one platform to
 another. Although for the first ones we may use them as if they were a
>>>
>>> What does "first ones" refer to here?
>>>
 major/minor version, that is not true for all platforms: we may have a
 `release_id == n` that is closer to `n - 2` than to `n - 1`.
>>>
>>> Hm this is a bit confusing. Is the sentence simply trying to say that,
>>> as the release id number is growing, hw capabilities are not simply
>>> accumulating but can be removed as well? Otherwise I am not sure how the
>>> user of these macros is supposed to act on this sentence.
>>>
 However the release id number is not defined by hardware until we start
 using the GMD_ID register. For the platforms before that register is
 useful we will set the values in software and we can set them as we
 please. So the plan is to set them so we can group different features
 under a single GRAPHICS_VER_FULL() check.

 After GMD_ID is used, the usefulness of a "full version check" will be
 greatly reduced and will be mostly used for deciding workarounds and a
 few code paths. So it makes sense to keep it as a separate field from
 graphics_ver.

 Also, currently there is not much use for the release id in media and
 display, so keep them out.

 This is a mix of 2 independent changes: one by me and the other by Matt
 Roper.

 Cc: Matt Roper 
 Signed-off-by: Lucas De Marchi 
 Signed-off-by: Matt Roper 
 ---
   drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h  | 6 ++
   drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_device_info.c | 2 ++
   drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_device_info.h | 2 ++
   3 files changed, 10 insertions(+)

 diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h 
 b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
 index 6dff4ca01241..9639800485b9 100644
 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
 +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
 @@ -1258,11 +1258,17 @@ static inline struct drm_i915_private 
 *pdev_to_i915(struct pci_dev *pdev)
*/
   #define IS_GEN(dev_priv, n)  (GRAPHICS_VER(dev_priv) == (n))

 +#define IP_VER(ver, release)  ((ver) << 8 | (release))
 +
   #define GRAPHICS_VER(i915)   (INTEL_INFO(i915)->graphics_ver)
 +#define GRAPHICS_VER_FULL(i915)   
 IP_VER(INTEL_INFO(i915)->graphics_ver, \
 + 
 INTEL_INFO(i915)->graphics_ver_release)
   #define IS_GRAPHICS_VER(i915, from, until) \
(GRAPHICS_VER(i915) >= (from) && GRAPHICS_VER(i915) <= (until))

   #define MEDIA_VER(i915)  (INTEL_INFO(i915)->media_ver)
 +#define MEDIA_VER_FULL(i915)  
 IP_VER(INTEL_INFO(i915)->media_ver, \
 + 
 INTEL_INFO(i915)->media_ver_release)
   #define IS_MEDIA_VER(i915, from, until) \
(MEDIA_VER(i915) >= (from) && MEDIA_VER(i915) <= (until))

 diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_device_info.c 
 b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_device_info.c
 index 7eaa92fee421..e8ad14f002c1 100644
 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_device_info.c
 +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_device_info.c
 @@ -97,7 +97,9 @@ void intel_device_info_print_static(const struct 
 intel_device_info *info,
struct drm_printer *p)
   {
drm_printf(p, "graphics_ver: %u\n", info->graphics_ver);
 +  drm_printf(p, "graphics_ver_release: %u\n", info->graphics_ver_release);
>>>
>>> I get the VER and VER_FULL in the macros but could 'ver' and
>>> 'ver_release' here and in the code simply be renamed to 'ver'/'version'
>>> and 'release'? Maybe it is just me but don't think I encountered the
>>> term "version release" before.
>>
>>Just bikeshedding here, but I thought of:
>>
>>  if (info->grapics_ver_release)
>>  drm_printf(p, "graphics_ver: %u.%u\n", info->graphics_ver, 
>> info->graphics_ver_release);
>>  else
>>  drm_printf(p, "graphics_ver: %u\n", info->graphics_ver);
>
> humn... a suggestion that I got internally a few week ago and I forgot
> to update this was that this doesn't need to be abbreviated in debugfs
> and could very well be:
>
>   drm_printf(p, "graphics version: %u\n", info->graphics_ver);
>   drm_printf(p, "graphics release: %u\n", info->graphics_ver_release);
>>
>>Also, I thought "x_ver" and "x_ver_release" sounds a bit odd, perhaps
>>having "x_ver" and "x_rel" is more natural?
>
> Not sure what direction to go now though. Maybe trying to put all
> suggestions together:
>
>

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 01/53] drm/i915: Add "release id" version

2021-07-06 Thread Lucas De Marchi 

On Mon, Jul 05, 2021 at 02:52:31PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:

On Fri, 02 Jul 2021, Tvrtko Ursulin  wrote:

On 01/07/2021 21:23, Matt Roper wrote:

From: Lucas De Marchi 

Besides the arch version returned by GRAPHICS_VER(), new platforms
contain a "release id" to make clear the difference from one platform to
another. Although for the first ones we may use them as if they were a


What does "first ones" refer to here?


major/minor version, that is not true for all platforms: we may have a
`release_id == n` that is closer to `n - 2` than to `n - 1`.


Hm this is a bit confusing. Is the sentence simply trying to say that,
as the release id number is growing, hw capabilities are not simply
accumulating but can be removed as well? Otherwise I am not sure how the
user of these macros is supposed to act on this sentence.


However the release id number is not defined by hardware until we start
using the GMD_ID register. For the platforms before that register is
useful we will set the values in software and we can set them as we
please. So the plan is to set them so we can group different features
under a single GRAPHICS_VER_FULL() check.

After GMD_ID is used, the usefulness of a "full version check" will be
greatly reduced and will be mostly used for deciding workarounds and a
few code paths. So it makes sense to keep it as a separate field from
graphics_ver.

Also, currently there is not much use for the release id in media and
display, so keep them out.

This is a mix of 2 independent changes: one by me and the other by Matt
Roper.

Cc: Matt Roper 
Signed-off-by: Lucas De Marchi 
Signed-off-by: Matt Roper 
---
  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h  | 6 ++
  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_device_info.c | 2 ++
  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_device_info.h | 2 ++
  3 files changed, 10 insertions(+)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
index 6dff4ca01241..9639800485b9 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
@@ -1258,11 +1258,17 @@ static inline struct drm_i915_private 
*pdev_to_i915(struct pci_dev *pdev)
   */
  #define IS_GEN(dev_priv, n)   (GRAPHICS_VER(dev_priv) == (n))

+#define IP_VER(ver, release)   ((ver) << 8 | (release))
+
  #define GRAPHICS_VER(i915)(INTEL_INFO(i915)->graphics_ver)
+#define GRAPHICS_VER_FULL(i915)
IP_VER(INTEL_INFO(i915)->graphics_ver, \
+  
INTEL_INFO(i915)->graphics_ver_release)
  #define IS_GRAPHICS_VER(i915, from, until) \
(GRAPHICS_VER(i915) >= (from) && GRAPHICS_VER(i915) <= (until))

  #define MEDIA_VER(i915)   (INTEL_INFO(i915)->media_ver)
+#define MEDIA_VER_FULL(i915)   IP_VER(INTEL_INFO(i915)->media_ver, \
+  
INTEL_INFO(i915)->media_ver_release)
  #define IS_MEDIA_VER(i915, from, until) \
(MEDIA_VER(i915) >= (from) && MEDIA_VER(i915) <= (until))

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_device_info.c 
b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_device_info.c
index 7eaa92fee421..e8ad14f002c1 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_device_info.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_device_info.c
@@ -97,7 +97,9 @@ void intel_device_info_print_static(const struct 
intel_device_info *info,
struct drm_printer *p)
  {
drm_printf(p, "graphics_ver: %u\n", info->graphics_ver);
+   drm_printf(p, "graphics_ver_release: %u\n", info->graphics_ver_release);


I get the VER and VER_FULL in the macros but could 'ver' and
'ver_release' here and in the code simply be renamed to 'ver'/'version'
and 'release'? Maybe it is just me but don't think I encountered the
term "version release" before.


Just bikeshedding here, but I thought of:

if (info->grapics_ver_release)
drm_printf(p, "graphics_ver: %u.%u\n", info->graphics_ver, 
info->graphics_ver_release);
else
drm_printf(p, "graphics_ver: %u\n", info->graphics_ver);


humn... a suggestion that I got internally a few week ago and I forgot
to update this was that this doesn't need to be abbreviated in debugfs
and could very well be:

drm_printf(p, "graphics version: %u\n", info->graphics_ver);
drm_printf(p, "graphics release: %u\n", info->graphics_ver_release);


Also, I thought "x_ver" and "x_ver_release" sounds a bit odd, perhaps
having "x_ver" and "x_rel" is more natural?


Not sure what direction to go now though. Maybe trying to put all
suggestions together:

if (info->graphics_rel)
drm_printf(p, "graphics version: %u.%u\n", info->graphics_ver, 
info->graphics_rel);
else
drm_printf(p, "graphics version: %u\n", info->graphics_ver);

One thing  I like is that doing `| grep "graphics version"`
gives all info you are searching for.


thanks
Lucas De Marchi
___
Intel-gfx mailing list

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 01/53] drm/i915: Add "release id" version

2021-07-06 Thread Lucas De Marchi 

On Fri, Jul 02, 2021 at 01:33:50PM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:


On 01/07/2021 21:23, Matt Roper wrote:

From: Lucas De Marchi 

Besides the arch version returned by GRAPHICS_VER(), new platforms
contain a "release id" to make clear the difference from one platform to
another. Although for the first ones we may use them as if they were a


What does "first ones" refer to here?


XeHP-SDV and DG2. The additional register that commit
01eb15c9165e ("drm/i915: Add DISPLAY_VER() and related macros")
talks about is not available for these platforms. Here we hardcode them
in software to something that makes sense and it allows the driver to
be properly prepared for future platforms.




major/minor version, that is not true for all platforms: we may have a
`release_id == n` that is closer to `n - 2` than to `n - 1`.


Hm this is a bit confusing. Is the sentence simply trying to say that, 
as the release id number is growing, hw capabilities are not simply 
accumulating but can be removed as well? Otherwise I am not sure how 
the user of these macros is supposed to act on this sentence.


this is explaining why those numbers can't be interpreted as
major/minor and hence why here it's called "release" rather than
"minor".

Your interpretation is correct, except that a feature not being there
doesn't necessarily mean it got removed at some point. I might just had
never been in that particular release: i.e. GRAPHICS_VER_FULL() == 14.5
doesn't necessarily mean it comes after 14.3, with additional
features/fixes.

Lucas De Marchi
___
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 01/53] drm/i915: Add "release id" version

2021-07-05 Thread Jani Nikula 
On Fri, 02 Jul 2021, Tvrtko Ursulin  wrote:
> On 01/07/2021 21:23, Matt Roper wrote:
>> From: Lucas De Marchi 
>> 
>> Besides the arch version returned by GRAPHICS_VER(), new platforms
>> contain a "release id" to make clear the difference from one platform to
>> another. Although for the first ones we may use them as if they were a
>
> What does "first ones" refer to here?
>
>> major/minor version, that is not true for all platforms: we may have a
>> `release_id == n` that is closer to `n - 2` than to `n - 1`.
>
> Hm this is a bit confusing. Is the sentence simply trying to say that, 
> as the release id number is growing, hw capabilities are not simply 
> accumulating but can be removed as well? Otherwise I am not sure how the 
> user of these macros is supposed to act on this sentence.
>
>> However the release id number is not defined by hardware until we start
>> using the GMD_ID register. For the platforms before that register is
>> useful we will set the values in software and we can set them as we
>> please. So the plan is to set them so we can group different features
>> under a single GRAPHICS_VER_FULL() check.
>> 
>> After GMD_ID is used, the usefulness of a "full version check" will be
>> greatly reduced and will be mostly used for deciding workarounds and a
>> few code paths. So it makes sense to keep it as a separate field from
>> graphics_ver.
>> 
>> Also, currently there is not much use for the release id in media and
>> display, so keep them out.
>> 
>> This is a mix of 2 independent changes: one by me and the other by Matt
>> Roper.
>> 
>> Cc: Matt Roper 
>> Signed-off-by: Lucas De Marchi 
>> Signed-off-by: Matt Roper 
>> ---
>>   drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h  | 6 ++
>>   drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_device_info.c | 2 ++
>>   drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_device_info.h | 2 ++
>>   3 files changed, 10 insertions(+)
>> 
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h 
>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
>> index 6dff4ca01241..9639800485b9 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
>> @@ -1258,11 +1258,17 @@ static inline struct drm_i915_private 
>> *pdev_to_i915(struct pci_dev *pdev)
>>*/
>>   #define IS_GEN(dev_priv, n)(GRAPHICS_VER(dev_priv) == (n))
>>   
>> +#define IP_VER(ver, release)((ver) << 8 | (release))
>> +
>>   #define GRAPHICS_VER(i915) (INTEL_INFO(i915)->graphics_ver)
>> +#define GRAPHICS_VER_FULL(i915) 
>> IP_VER(INTEL_INFO(i915)->graphics_ver, \
>> +   
>> INTEL_INFO(i915)->graphics_ver_release)
>>   #define IS_GRAPHICS_VER(i915, from, until) \
>>  (GRAPHICS_VER(i915) >= (from) && GRAPHICS_VER(i915) <= (until))
>>   
>>   #define MEDIA_VER(i915)(INTEL_INFO(i915)->media_ver)
>> +#define MEDIA_VER_FULL(i915)
>> IP_VER(INTEL_INFO(i915)->media_ver, \
>> +   
>> INTEL_INFO(i915)->media_ver_release)
>>   #define IS_MEDIA_VER(i915, from, until) \
>>  (MEDIA_VER(i915) >= (from) && MEDIA_VER(i915) <= (until))
>>   
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_device_info.c 
>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_device_info.c
>> index 7eaa92fee421..e8ad14f002c1 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_device_info.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_device_info.c
>> @@ -97,7 +97,9 @@ void intel_device_info_print_static(const struct 
>> intel_device_info *info,
>>  struct drm_printer *p)
>>   {
>>  drm_printf(p, "graphics_ver: %u\n", info->graphics_ver);
>> +drm_printf(p, "graphics_ver_release: %u\n", info->graphics_ver_release);
>
> I get the VER and VER_FULL in the macros but could 'ver' and 
> 'ver_release' here and in the code simply be renamed to 'ver'/'version' 
> and 'release'? Maybe it is just me but don't think I encountered the 
> term "version release" before.

Just bikeshedding here, but I thought of:

if (info->grapics_ver_release)
drm_printf(p, "graphics_ver: %u.%u\n", info->graphics_ver, 
info->graphics_ver_release);
else
drm_printf(p, "graphics_ver: %u\n", info->graphics_ver);

Also, I thought "x_ver" and "x_ver_release" sounds a bit odd, perhaps
having "x_ver" and "x_rel" is more natural?

Ultimately I think we've historically always sucked at trying to figure
this out up front, so maybe the right answer is merging something and
fixing later...


BR,
Jani.





>
> Regards,
>
> Tvrtko
>
>>  drm_printf(p, "media_ver: %u\n", info->media_ver);
>> +drm_printf(p, "media_ver_release: %u\n", info->media_ver_release);
>>  drm_printf(p, "display_ver: %u\n", info->display.ver);
>>  drm_printf(p, "gt: %d\n", info->gt);
>>  drm_printf(p, "iommu: %s\n", iommu_name());
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_device_info.h 
>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_device_info.h
>> index b326aff65cd6..944a5ff4df49 100644
>> ---

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 01/53] drm/i915: Add "release id" version

2021-07-02 Thread Tvrtko Ursulin 



On 01/07/2021 21:23, Matt Roper wrote:

From: Lucas De Marchi 

Besides the arch version returned by GRAPHICS_VER(), new platforms
contain a "release id" to make clear the difference from one platform to
another. Although for the first ones we may use them as if they were a


What does "first ones" refer to here?


major/minor version, that is not true for all platforms: we may have a
`release_id == n` that is closer to `n - 2` than to `n - 1`.


Hm this is a bit confusing. Is the sentence simply trying to say that, 
as the release id number is growing, hw capabilities are not simply 
accumulating but can be removed as well? Otherwise I am not sure how the 
user of these macros is supposed to act on this sentence.



However the release id number is not defined by hardware until we start
using the GMD_ID register. For the platforms before that register is
useful we will set the values in software and we can set them as we
please. So the plan is to set them so we can group different features
under a single GRAPHICS_VER_FULL() check.

After GMD_ID is used, the usefulness of a "full version check" will be
greatly reduced and will be mostly used for deciding workarounds and a
few code paths. So it makes sense to keep it as a separate field from
graphics_ver.

Also, currently there is not much use for the release id in media and
display, so keep them out.

This is a mix of 2 independent changes: one by me and the other by Matt
Roper.

Cc: Matt Roper 
Signed-off-by: Lucas De Marchi 
Signed-off-by: Matt Roper 
---
  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h  | 6 ++
  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_device_info.c | 2 ++
  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_device_info.h | 2 ++
  3 files changed, 10 insertions(+)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
index 6dff4ca01241..9639800485b9 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
@@ -1258,11 +1258,17 @@ static inline struct drm_i915_private 
*pdev_to_i915(struct pci_dev *pdev)
   */
  #define IS_GEN(dev_priv, n)   (GRAPHICS_VER(dev_priv) == (n))
  
+#define IP_VER(ver, release)		((ver) << 8 | (release))

+
  #define GRAPHICS_VER(i915)(INTEL_INFO(i915)->graphics_ver)
+#define GRAPHICS_VER_FULL(i915)
IP_VER(INTEL_INFO(i915)->graphics_ver, \
+  
INTEL_INFO(i915)->graphics_ver_release)
  #define IS_GRAPHICS_VER(i915, from, until) \
(GRAPHICS_VER(i915) >= (from) && GRAPHICS_VER(i915) <= (until))
  
  #define MEDIA_VER(i915)			(INTEL_INFO(i915)->media_ver)

+#define MEDIA_VER_FULL(i915)   IP_VER(INTEL_INFO(i915)->media_ver, \
+  
INTEL_INFO(i915)->media_ver_release)
  #define IS_MEDIA_VER(i915, from, until) \
(MEDIA_VER(i915) >= (from) && MEDIA_VER(i915) <= (until))
  
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_device_info.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_device_info.c

index 7eaa92fee421..e8ad14f002c1 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_device_info.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_device_info.c
@@ -97,7 +97,9 @@ void intel_device_info_print_static(const struct 
intel_device_info *info,
struct drm_printer *p)
  {
drm_printf(p, "graphics_ver: %u\n", info->graphics_ver);
+   drm_printf(p, "graphics_ver_release: %u\n", info->graphics_ver_release);


I get the VER and VER_FULL in the macros but could 'ver' and 
'ver_release' here and in the code simply be renamed to 'ver'/'version' 
and 'release'? Maybe it is just me but don't think I encountered the 
term "version release" before.


Regards,

Tvrtko


drm_printf(p, "media_ver: %u\n", info->media_ver);
+   drm_printf(p, "media_ver_release: %u\n", info->media_ver_release);
drm_printf(p, "display_ver: %u\n", info->display.ver);
drm_printf(p, "gt: %d\n", info->gt);
drm_printf(p, "iommu: %s\n", iommu_name());
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_device_info.h 
b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_device_info.h
index b326aff65cd6..944a5ff4df49 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_device_info.h
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_device_info.h
@@ -162,7 +162,9 @@ enum intel_ppgtt_type {
  
  struct intel_device_info {

u8 graphics_ver;
+   u8 graphics_ver_release;
u8 media_ver;
+   u8 media_ver_release;
  
  	u8 gt; /* GT number, 0 if undefined */

intel_engine_mask_t platform_engine_mask; /* Engines supported by the 
HW */


___
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 01/53] drm/i915: Add "release id" version

2021-07-01 Thread Matt Roper 
From: Lucas De Marchi 

Besides the arch version returned by GRAPHICS_VER(), new platforms
contain a "release id" to make clear the difference from one platform to
another. Although for the first ones we may use them as if they were a
major/minor version, that is not true for all platforms: we may have a
`release_id == n` that is closer to `n - 2` than to `n - 1`.

However the release id number is not defined by hardware until we start
using the GMD_ID register. For the platforms before that register is
useful we will set the values in software and we can set them as we
please. So the plan is to set them so we can group different features
under a single GRAPHICS_VER_FULL() check.

After GMD_ID is used, the usefulness of a "full version check" will be
greatly reduced and will be mostly used for deciding workarounds and a
few code paths. So it makes sense to keep it as a separate field from
graphics_ver.

Also, currently there is not much use for the release id in media and
display, so keep them out.

This is a mix of 2 independent changes: one by me and the other by Matt
Roper.

Cc: Matt Roper 
Signed-off-by: Lucas De Marchi 
Signed-off-by: Matt Roper 
---
 drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h  | 6 ++
 drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_device_info.c | 2 ++
 drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_device_info.h | 2 ++
 3 files changed, 10 insertions(+)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
index 6dff4ca01241..9639800485b9 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
@@ -1258,11 +1258,17 @@ static inline struct drm_i915_private 
*pdev_to_i915(struct pci_dev *pdev)
  */
 #define IS_GEN(dev_priv, n)(GRAPHICS_VER(dev_priv) == (n))
 
+#define IP_VER(ver, release)   ((ver) << 8 | (release))
+
 #define GRAPHICS_VER(i915) (INTEL_INFO(i915)->graphics_ver)
+#define GRAPHICS_VER_FULL(i915)
IP_VER(INTEL_INFO(i915)->graphics_ver, \
+  
INTEL_INFO(i915)->graphics_ver_release)
 #define IS_GRAPHICS_VER(i915, from, until) \
(GRAPHICS_VER(i915) >= (from) && GRAPHICS_VER(i915) <= (until))
 
 #define MEDIA_VER(i915)(INTEL_INFO(i915)->media_ver)
+#define MEDIA_VER_FULL(i915)   IP_VER(INTEL_INFO(i915)->media_ver, \
+  
INTEL_INFO(i915)->media_ver_release)
 #define IS_MEDIA_VER(i915, from, until) \
(MEDIA_VER(i915) >= (from) && MEDIA_VER(i915) <= (until))
 
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_device_info.c 
b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_device_info.c
index 7eaa92fee421..e8ad14f002c1 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_device_info.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_device_info.c
@@ -97,7 +97,9 @@ void intel_device_info_print_static(const struct 
intel_device_info *info,
struct drm_printer *p)
 {
drm_printf(p, "graphics_ver: %u\n", info->graphics_ver);
+   drm_printf(p, "graphics_ver_release: %u\n", info->graphics_ver_release);
drm_printf(p, "media_ver: %u\n", info->media_ver);
+   drm_printf(p, "media_ver_release: %u\n", info->media_ver_release);
drm_printf(p, "display_ver: %u\n", info->display.ver);
drm_printf(p, "gt: %d\n", info->gt);
drm_printf(p, "iommu: %s\n", iommu_name());
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_device_info.h 
b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_device_info.h
index b326aff65cd6..944a5ff4df49 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_device_info.h
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_device_info.h
@@ -162,7 +162,9 @@ enum intel_ppgtt_type {
 
 struct intel_device_info {
u8 graphics_ver;
+   u8 graphics_ver_release;
u8 media_ver;
+   u8 media_ver_release;
 
u8 gt; /* GT number, 0 if undefined */
intel_engine_mask_t platform_engine_mask; /* Engines supported by the 
HW */
-- 
2.25.4

___
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx