Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: Don't sanitize frame start delay if the pipe is off
Quoting Ville Syrjala (2017-11-15 20:04:42) > From: Ville Syrjälä > > Avoid touching PIPECONF in intel_sanitize_crtc() unless the pipe is > actually on. Should cure some unclaimed register accesses. While using crtc->active is consistent with other sanitization, is this really a fix for unclaimed register access? We should be holding all the powerwells at this moment in bringing up the hw, right? So the only unclaimed access would be if the reg didn't exist. So are we looking at an invalid cpu_transcoder? -Chris ___ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: Don't sanitize frame start delay if the pipe is off
Quoting Ville Syrjälä (2017-11-15 20:35:41) > On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 08:17:21PM +, Chris Wilson wrote: > > Quoting Ville Syrjala (2017-11-15 20:04:42) > > > From: Ville Syrjälä > > > > > > Avoid touching PIPECONF in intel_sanitize_crtc() unless the pipe is > > > actually on. Should cure some unclaimed register accesses. > > > > While using crtc->active is consistent with other sanitization, is this > > really a fix for unclaimed register access? > > > > We should be holding all the powerwells at this moment in bringing up > > the hw, right? So the only unclaimed access would be if the reg didn't > > exist. So are we looking at an invalid cpu_transcoder? > > I was thinking we'd have dropped the power references already. But > I guess not. And that should definitely then give unclaimed register > accesses during driver init. > > I think these fails are in the "pretend display gets clobbered by GPU > reset" path. And there we don't actually seem to grabbing the init power > reference, which could well explain this. Hmm, it is in reset's __intel_dsiplay_resume() so that's a likely candidate. > Not sure we want to add the init power there either. Most of the readout > code now has the power domain handling in place, so maybe we're close > to being able to nuke the init power thing entirely? But for reset, shouldn't we be taking the display powerwells in intel_prepare_reset() or is that already there buried away in the indirection? Oh, that intel_display_set_init_power() definitely seems out of place along reset. -Chris ___ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: Don't sanitize frame start delay if the pipe is off
Quoting Ville Syrjala (2017-11-15 20:04:42) > From: Ville Syrjälä > > Avoid touching PIPECONF in intel_sanitize_crtc() unless the pipe is > actually on. Should cure some unclaimed register accesses. + during reset, as we are rather cavalier in our approach to powerdomain management. > We don't have to sanitize this if the pipe is off since we will > overwrite the frame start delay anyway when turning the pipe on. > > Bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=102249 > Signed-off-by: Ville Syrjälä Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson Let's not even get started on the handling of modesets vs display reset. -Chris ___ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: Don't sanitize frame start delay if the pipe is off
On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 09:13:28PM +, Chris Wilson wrote: > Quoting Ville Syrjala (2017-11-15 20:04:42) > > From: Ville Syrjälä > > > > Avoid touching PIPECONF in intel_sanitize_crtc() unless the pipe is > > actually on. Should cure some unclaimed register accesses. > + during reset, as we are rather cavalier in our approach to powerdomain > management. Amended, and pushed. Thanks. > > > We don't have to sanitize this if the pipe is off since we will > > overwrite the frame start delay anyway when turning the pipe on. > > > > Bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=102249 > > Signed-off-by: Ville Syrjälä > Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson > > Let's not even get started on the handling of modesets vs display reset. > -Chris -- Ville Syrjälä Intel OTC ___ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: Don't sanitize frame start delay if the pipe is off
On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 08:17:21PM +, Chris Wilson wrote: > Quoting Ville Syrjala (2017-11-15 20:04:42) > > From: Ville Syrjälä > > > > Avoid touching PIPECONF in intel_sanitize_crtc() unless the pipe is > > actually on. Should cure some unclaimed register accesses. > > While using crtc->active is consistent with other sanitization, is this > really a fix for unclaimed register access? > > We should be holding all the powerwells at this moment in bringing up > the hw, right? So the only unclaimed access would be if the reg didn't > exist. So are we looking at an invalid cpu_transcoder? I was thinking we'd have dropped the power references already. But I guess not. And that should definitely then give unclaimed register accesses during driver init. I think these fails are in the "pretend display gets clobbered by GPU reset" path. And there we don't actually seem to grabbing the init power reference, which could well explain this. Not sure we want to add the init power there either. Most of the readout code now has the power domain handling in place, so maybe we're close to being able to nuke the init power thing entirely? -- Ville Syrjälä Intel OTC ___ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx