All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Imre Deak <imre.deak@intel.com>
To: Lyude Paul <lyude@redhat.com>
Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>,
	open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"open list:DRM DRIVERS" <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2] drm/i915/gen9bc: Handle TGP PCH during suspend/resume
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2021 20:08:25 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210216180825.GA420119@ideak-desk.fi.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210212185053.1689716-1-lyude@redhat.com>

Hi,

thanks for respinning this patchset, some comments below.

On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 01:50:53PM -0500, Lyude Paul wrote:
> From: Tejas Upadhyay <tejaskumarx.surendrakumar.upadhyay@intel.com>
> 
> For Legacy S3 suspend/resume GEN9 BC needs to enable and
> setup TGP PCH.
> 
> v2:
> * Move Wa_14010685332 into it's own function - vsyrjala
> * Add TODO comment about figuring out if we can move this workaround - imre
> 
> Cc: Matt Roper <matthew.d.roper@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Tejas Upadhyay <tejaskumarx.surendrakumar.upadhyay@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Lyude Paul <lyude@redhat.com>
> ---
>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c | 53 ++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
>  1 file changed, 36 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c
> index 98145a7f28a4..7d912aa950ee 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c
> @@ -3040,6 +3040,19 @@ static void valleyview_irq_reset(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
>  	spin_unlock_irq(&dev_priv->irq_lock);
>  }
>  
> +static void cnp_irq_post_reset(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)

Maybe a better name is cnp_display_clock_wa.

> +{
> +	struct intel_uncore *uncore = &dev_priv->uncore;
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * Wa_14010685332:cnp/cmp,tgp,adp

Bspec says this WA applies ICL onwards and it's not PCH specific, for
instance I haven't found the GEN9/CNP/CMP WA entries for it. Please also
add a 'clarify platforms where this applies' todo item.

> +	 * TODO: Figure out if this workaround can be applied in the s0ix suspend/resume handlers as
> +	 * on earlier platforms and whether the workaround is also needed for runtime suspend/resume
> +	 */
> +	intel_uncore_rmw(uncore, SOUTH_CHICKEN1, SBCLK_RUN_REFCLK_DIS, SBCLK_RUN_REFCLK_DIS);
> +	intel_uncore_rmw(uncore, SOUTH_CHICKEN1, SBCLK_RUN_REFCLK_DIS, 0);
> +}
> +
>  static void gen8_irq_reset(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
>  {
>  	struct intel_uncore *uncore = &dev_priv->uncore;
> @@ -3061,8 +3074,14 @@ static void gen8_irq_reset(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
>  	GEN3_IRQ_RESET(uncore, GEN8_DE_MISC_);
>  	GEN3_IRQ_RESET(uncore, GEN8_PCU_);
>  
> -	if (HAS_PCH_SPLIT(dev_priv))
> +	if (INTEL_PCH_TYPE(dev_priv) >= PCH_ICP)

It was mentioned already earlier, why is this check necessary and can't we
just call ibx_irq_reset() for all PCHs?

> +		GEN3_IRQ_RESET(uncore, SDE);
> +	else if (HAS_PCH_SPLIT(dev_priv))
>  		ibx_irq_reset(dev_priv);
> +
> +	if (INTEL_PCH_TYPE(dev_priv) == PCH_CNP ||
> +	    (INTEL_PCH_TYPE(dev_priv) >= PCH_TGP && INTEL_PCH_TYPE(dev_priv) < PCH_DG1))

The check could be also moved to the helper.

> +		cnp_irq_post_reset(dev_priv);
>  }
>  
>  static void gen11_display_irq_reset(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
> @@ -3104,15 +3123,9 @@ static void gen11_display_irq_reset(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
>  	if (INTEL_PCH_TYPE(dev_priv) >= PCH_ICP)
>  		GEN3_IRQ_RESET(uncore, SDE);
>  
> -	/* Wa_14010685332:cnp/cmp,tgp,adp */
>  	if (INTEL_PCH_TYPE(dev_priv) == PCH_CNP ||
> -	    (INTEL_PCH_TYPE(dev_priv) >= PCH_TGP &&
> -	     INTEL_PCH_TYPE(dev_priv) < PCH_DG1)) {
> -		intel_uncore_rmw(uncore, SOUTH_CHICKEN1,
> -				 SBCLK_RUN_REFCLK_DIS, SBCLK_RUN_REFCLK_DIS);
> -		intel_uncore_rmw(uncore, SOUTH_CHICKEN1,
> -				 SBCLK_RUN_REFCLK_DIS, 0);
> -	}
> +	    (INTEL_PCH_TYPE(dev_priv) >= PCH_TGP && INTEL_PCH_TYPE(dev_priv) < PCH_DG1))
> +		cnp_irq_post_reset(dev_priv);
>  }
>  
>  static void gen11_irq_reset(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
> @@ -3474,6 +3487,9 @@ static void spt_hpd_irq_setup(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
>  	ibx_display_interrupt_update(dev_priv, hotplug_irqs, enabled_irqs);
>  
>  	spt_hpd_detection_setup(dev_priv);
> +
> +	if (INTEL_PCH_TYPE(dev_priv) >= PCH_ICP)
> +		icp_hpd_irq_setup(dev_priv);

This doesn't look correct, icp_hpd_irq_setup() redoes the interrupt
setup done already earlier in this function and
spt_hpd_detection_setup() is probably also not correct on ICP+. Looks
like for ICP+ we need to call icp_hpd_irq_setup() instead of
spt_hpd_irq_setup(), but haven't checked in detail.

>  }
>  
>  static u32 ilk_hotplug_enables(struct drm_i915_private *i915,
> @@ -3764,9 +3780,19 @@ static void gen8_de_irq_postinstall(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
>  	}
>  }
>  
> +static void icp_irq_postinstall(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
> +{
> +	struct intel_uncore *uncore = &dev_priv->uncore;
> +	u32 mask = SDE_GMBUS_ICP;
> +
> +	GEN3_IRQ_INIT(uncore, SDE, ~mask, 0xffffffff);
> +}
> +
>  static void gen8_irq_postinstall(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
>  {
> -	if (HAS_PCH_SPLIT(dev_priv))
> +	if (INTEL_PCH_TYPE(dev_priv) >= PCH_ICP)
> +		icp_irq_postinstall(dev_priv);
> +	else if (HAS_PCH_SPLIT(dev_priv))
>  		ibx_irq_postinstall(dev_priv);
>  
>  	gen8_gt_irq_postinstall(&dev_priv->gt);
> @@ -3775,13 +3801,6 @@ static void gen8_irq_postinstall(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
>  	gen8_master_intr_enable(dev_priv->uncore.regs);
>  }
>  
> -static void icp_irq_postinstall(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
> -{
> -	struct intel_uncore *uncore = &dev_priv->uncore;
> -	u32 mask = SDE_GMBUS_ICP;
> -
> -	GEN3_IRQ_INIT(uncore, SDE, ~mask, 0xffffffff);
> -}
>  
>  static void gen11_irq_postinstall(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
>  {
> -- 
> 2.29.2
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Intel-gfx mailing list
> Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Imre Deak <imre.deak@intel.com>
To: Lyude Paul <lyude@redhat.com>
Cc: David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>,
	intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org,
	open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"open list:DRM DRIVERS" <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2] drm/i915/gen9bc: Handle TGP PCH during suspend/resume
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2021 20:08:25 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210216180825.GA420119@ideak-desk.fi.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210212185053.1689716-1-lyude@redhat.com>

Hi,

thanks for respinning this patchset, some comments below.

On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 01:50:53PM -0500, Lyude Paul wrote:
> From: Tejas Upadhyay <tejaskumarx.surendrakumar.upadhyay@intel.com>
> 
> For Legacy S3 suspend/resume GEN9 BC needs to enable and
> setup TGP PCH.
> 
> v2:
> * Move Wa_14010685332 into it's own function - vsyrjala
> * Add TODO comment about figuring out if we can move this workaround - imre
> 
> Cc: Matt Roper <matthew.d.roper@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Tejas Upadhyay <tejaskumarx.surendrakumar.upadhyay@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Lyude Paul <lyude@redhat.com>
> ---
>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c | 53 ++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
>  1 file changed, 36 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c
> index 98145a7f28a4..7d912aa950ee 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c
> @@ -3040,6 +3040,19 @@ static void valleyview_irq_reset(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
>  	spin_unlock_irq(&dev_priv->irq_lock);
>  }
>  
> +static void cnp_irq_post_reset(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)

Maybe a better name is cnp_display_clock_wa.

> +{
> +	struct intel_uncore *uncore = &dev_priv->uncore;
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * Wa_14010685332:cnp/cmp,tgp,adp

Bspec says this WA applies ICL onwards and it's not PCH specific, for
instance I haven't found the GEN9/CNP/CMP WA entries for it. Please also
add a 'clarify platforms where this applies' todo item.

> +	 * TODO: Figure out if this workaround can be applied in the s0ix suspend/resume handlers as
> +	 * on earlier platforms and whether the workaround is also needed for runtime suspend/resume
> +	 */
> +	intel_uncore_rmw(uncore, SOUTH_CHICKEN1, SBCLK_RUN_REFCLK_DIS, SBCLK_RUN_REFCLK_DIS);
> +	intel_uncore_rmw(uncore, SOUTH_CHICKEN1, SBCLK_RUN_REFCLK_DIS, 0);
> +}
> +
>  static void gen8_irq_reset(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
>  {
>  	struct intel_uncore *uncore = &dev_priv->uncore;
> @@ -3061,8 +3074,14 @@ static void gen8_irq_reset(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
>  	GEN3_IRQ_RESET(uncore, GEN8_DE_MISC_);
>  	GEN3_IRQ_RESET(uncore, GEN8_PCU_);
>  
> -	if (HAS_PCH_SPLIT(dev_priv))
> +	if (INTEL_PCH_TYPE(dev_priv) >= PCH_ICP)

It was mentioned already earlier, why is this check necessary and can't we
just call ibx_irq_reset() for all PCHs?

> +		GEN3_IRQ_RESET(uncore, SDE);
> +	else if (HAS_PCH_SPLIT(dev_priv))
>  		ibx_irq_reset(dev_priv);
> +
> +	if (INTEL_PCH_TYPE(dev_priv) == PCH_CNP ||
> +	    (INTEL_PCH_TYPE(dev_priv) >= PCH_TGP && INTEL_PCH_TYPE(dev_priv) < PCH_DG1))

The check could be also moved to the helper.

> +		cnp_irq_post_reset(dev_priv);
>  }
>  
>  static void gen11_display_irq_reset(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
> @@ -3104,15 +3123,9 @@ static void gen11_display_irq_reset(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
>  	if (INTEL_PCH_TYPE(dev_priv) >= PCH_ICP)
>  		GEN3_IRQ_RESET(uncore, SDE);
>  
> -	/* Wa_14010685332:cnp/cmp,tgp,adp */
>  	if (INTEL_PCH_TYPE(dev_priv) == PCH_CNP ||
> -	    (INTEL_PCH_TYPE(dev_priv) >= PCH_TGP &&
> -	     INTEL_PCH_TYPE(dev_priv) < PCH_DG1)) {
> -		intel_uncore_rmw(uncore, SOUTH_CHICKEN1,
> -				 SBCLK_RUN_REFCLK_DIS, SBCLK_RUN_REFCLK_DIS);
> -		intel_uncore_rmw(uncore, SOUTH_CHICKEN1,
> -				 SBCLK_RUN_REFCLK_DIS, 0);
> -	}
> +	    (INTEL_PCH_TYPE(dev_priv) >= PCH_TGP && INTEL_PCH_TYPE(dev_priv) < PCH_DG1))
> +		cnp_irq_post_reset(dev_priv);
>  }
>  
>  static void gen11_irq_reset(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
> @@ -3474,6 +3487,9 @@ static void spt_hpd_irq_setup(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
>  	ibx_display_interrupt_update(dev_priv, hotplug_irqs, enabled_irqs);
>  
>  	spt_hpd_detection_setup(dev_priv);
> +
> +	if (INTEL_PCH_TYPE(dev_priv) >= PCH_ICP)
> +		icp_hpd_irq_setup(dev_priv);

This doesn't look correct, icp_hpd_irq_setup() redoes the interrupt
setup done already earlier in this function and
spt_hpd_detection_setup() is probably also not correct on ICP+. Looks
like for ICP+ we need to call icp_hpd_irq_setup() instead of
spt_hpd_irq_setup(), but haven't checked in detail.

>  }
>  
>  static u32 ilk_hotplug_enables(struct drm_i915_private *i915,
> @@ -3764,9 +3780,19 @@ static void gen8_de_irq_postinstall(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
>  	}
>  }
>  
> +static void icp_irq_postinstall(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
> +{
> +	struct intel_uncore *uncore = &dev_priv->uncore;
> +	u32 mask = SDE_GMBUS_ICP;
> +
> +	GEN3_IRQ_INIT(uncore, SDE, ~mask, 0xffffffff);
> +}
> +
>  static void gen8_irq_postinstall(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
>  {
> -	if (HAS_PCH_SPLIT(dev_priv))
> +	if (INTEL_PCH_TYPE(dev_priv) >= PCH_ICP)
> +		icp_irq_postinstall(dev_priv);
> +	else if (HAS_PCH_SPLIT(dev_priv))
>  		ibx_irq_postinstall(dev_priv);
>  
>  	gen8_gt_irq_postinstall(&dev_priv->gt);
> @@ -3775,13 +3801,6 @@ static void gen8_irq_postinstall(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
>  	gen8_master_intr_enable(dev_priv->uncore.regs);
>  }
>  
> -static void icp_irq_postinstall(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
> -{
> -	struct intel_uncore *uncore = &dev_priv->uncore;
> -	u32 mask = SDE_GMBUS_ICP;
> -
> -	GEN3_IRQ_INIT(uncore, SDE, ~mask, 0xffffffff);
> -}
>  
>  static void gen11_irq_postinstall(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
>  {
> -- 
> 2.29.2
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Intel-gfx mailing list
> Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Imre Deak <imre.deak@intel.com>
To: Lyude Paul <lyude@redhat.com>
Cc: David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>,
	intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org,
	open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"open list:DRM DRIVERS" <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2] drm/i915/gen9bc: Handle TGP PCH during suspend/resume
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2021 20:08:25 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210216180825.GA420119@ideak-desk.fi.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210212185053.1689716-1-lyude@redhat.com>

Hi,

thanks for respinning this patchset, some comments below.

On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 01:50:53PM -0500, Lyude Paul wrote:
> From: Tejas Upadhyay <tejaskumarx.surendrakumar.upadhyay@intel.com>
> 
> For Legacy S3 suspend/resume GEN9 BC needs to enable and
> setup TGP PCH.
> 
> v2:
> * Move Wa_14010685332 into it's own function - vsyrjala
> * Add TODO comment about figuring out if we can move this workaround - imre
> 
> Cc: Matt Roper <matthew.d.roper@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Tejas Upadhyay <tejaskumarx.surendrakumar.upadhyay@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Lyude Paul <lyude@redhat.com>
> ---
>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c | 53 ++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
>  1 file changed, 36 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c
> index 98145a7f28a4..7d912aa950ee 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c
> @@ -3040,6 +3040,19 @@ static void valleyview_irq_reset(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
>  	spin_unlock_irq(&dev_priv->irq_lock);
>  }
>  
> +static void cnp_irq_post_reset(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)

Maybe a better name is cnp_display_clock_wa.

> +{
> +	struct intel_uncore *uncore = &dev_priv->uncore;
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * Wa_14010685332:cnp/cmp,tgp,adp

Bspec says this WA applies ICL onwards and it's not PCH specific, for
instance I haven't found the GEN9/CNP/CMP WA entries for it. Please also
add a 'clarify platforms where this applies' todo item.

> +	 * TODO: Figure out if this workaround can be applied in the s0ix suspend/resume handlers as
> +	 * on earlier platforms and whether the workaround is also needed for runtime suspend/resume
> +	 */
> +	intel_uncore_rmw(uncore, SOUTH_CHICKEN1, SBCLK_RUN_REFCLK_DIS, SBCLK_RUN_REFCLK_DIS);
> +	intel_uncore_rmw(uncore, SOUTH_CHICKEN1, SBCLK_RUN_REFCLK_DIS, 0);
> +}
> +
>  static void gen8_irq_reset(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
>  {
>  	struct intel_uncore *uncore = &dev_priv->uncore;
> @@ -3061,8 +3074,14 @@ static void gen8_irq_reset(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
>  	GEN3_IRQ_RESET(uncore, GEN8_DE_MISC_);
>  	GEN3_IRQ_RESET(uncore, GEN8_PCU_);
>  
> -	if (HAS_PCH_SPLIT(dev_priv))
> +	if (INTEL_PCH_TYPE(dev_priv) >= PCH_ICP)

It was mentioned already earlier, why is this check necessary and can't we
just call ibx_irq_reset() for all PCHs?

> +		GEN3_IRQ_RESET(uncore, SDE);
> +	else if (HAS_PCH_SPLIT(dev_priv))
>  		ibx_irq_reset(dev_priv);
> +
> +	if (INTEL_PCH_TYPE(dev_priv) == PCH_CNP ||
> +	    (INTEL_PCH_TYPE(dev_priv) >= PCH_TGP && INTEL_PCH_TYPE(dev_priv) < PCH_DG1))

The check could be also moved to the helper.

> +		cnp_irq_post_reset(dev_priv);
>  }
>  
>  static void gen11_display_irq_reset(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
> @@ -3104,15 +3123,9 @@ static void gen11_display_irq_reset(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
>  	if (INTEL_PCH_TYPE(dev_priv) >= PCH_ICP)
>  		GEN3_IRQ_RESET(uncore, SDE);
>  
> -	/* Wa_14010685332:cnp/cmp,tgp,adp */
>  	if (INTEL_PCH_TYPE(dev_priv) == PCH_CNP ||
> -	    (INTEL_PCH_TYPE(dev_priv) >= PCH_TGP &&
> -	     INTEL_PCH_TYPE(dev_priv) < PCH_DG1)) {
> -		intel_uncore_rmw(uncore, SOUTH_CHICKEN1,
> -				 SBCLK_RUN_REFCLK_DIS, SBCLK_RUN_REFCLK_DIS);
> -		intel_uncore_rmw(uncore, SOUTH_CHICKEN1,
> -				 SBCLK_RUN_REFCLK_DIS, 0);
> -	}
> +	    (INTEL_PCH_TYPE(dev_priv) >= PCH_TGP && INTEL_PCH_TYPE(dev_priv) < PCH_DG1))
> +		cnp_irq_post_reset(dev_priv);
>  }
>  
>  static void gen11_irq_reset(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
> @@ -3474,6 +3487,9 @@ static void spt_hpd_irq_setup(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
>  	ibx_display_interrupt_update(dev_priv, hotplug_irqs, enabled_irqs);
>  
>  	spt_hpd_detection_setup(dev_priv);
> +
> +	if (INTEL_PCH_TYPE(dev_priv) >= PCH_ICP)
> +		icp_hpd_irq_setup(dev_priv);

This doesn't look correct, icp_hpd_irq_setup() redoes the interrupt
setup done already earlier in this function and
spt_hpd_detection_setup() is probably also not correct on ICP+. Looks
like for ICP+ we need to call icp_hpd_irq_setup() instead of
spt_hpd_irq_setup(), but haven't checked in detail.

>  }
>  
>  static u32 ilk_hotplug_enables(struct drm_i915_private *i915,
> @@ -3764,9 +3780,19 @@ static void gen8_de_irq_postinstall(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
>  	}
>  }
>  
> +static void icp_irq_postinstall(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
> +{
> +	struct intel_uncore *uncore = &dev_priv->uncore;
> +	u32 mask = SDE_GMBUS_ICP;
> +
> +	GEN3_IRQ_INIT(uncore, SDE, ~mask, 0xffffffff);
> +}
> +
>  static void gen8_irq_postinstall(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
>  {
> -	if (HAS_PCH_SPLIT(dev_priv))
> +	if (INTEL_PCH_TYPE(dev_priv) >= PCH_ICP)
> +		icp_irq_postinstall(dev_priv);
> +	else if (HAS_PCH_SPLIT(dev_priv))
>  		ibx_irq_postinstall(dev_priv);
>  
>  	gen8_gt_irq_postinstall(&dev_priv->gt);
> @@ -3775,13 +3801,6 @@ static void gen8_irq_postinstall(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
>  	gen8_master_intr_enable(dev_priv->uncore.regs);
>  }
>  
> -static void icp_irq_postinstall(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
> -{
> -	struct intel_uncore *uncore = &dev_priv->uncore;
> -	u32 mask = SDE_GMBUS_ICP;
> -
> -	GEN3_IRQ_INIT(uncore, SDE, ~mask, 0xffffffff);
> -}
>  
>  static void gen11_irq_postinstall(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
>  {
> -- 
> 2.29.2
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Intel-gfx mailing list
> Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

  parent reply	other threads:[~2021-02-16 18:09 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-02-12 18:50 [PATCH v2] drm/i915/gen9bc: Handle TGP PCH during suspend/resume Lyude Paul
2021-02-12 18:50 ` [Intel-gfx] " Lyude Paul
2021-02-12 18:50 ` Lyude Paul
2021-02-12 19:32 ` [Intel-gfx] ✓ Fi.CI.BAT: success for drm/i915/gen9bc: Handle TGP PCH during suspend/resume (rev2) Patchwork
2021-02-12 21:04 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.IGT: failure " Patchwork
2021-02-12 23:30 ` [Intel-gfx] ✓ Fi.CI.BAT: success for drm/i915/gen9bc: Handle TGP PCH during suspend/resume (rev3) Patchwork
2021-02-13  1:11 ` [Intel-gfx] ✓ Fi.CI.IGT: " Patchwork
2021-02-16 18:08 ` Imre Deak [this message]
2021-02-16 18:08   ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2] drm/i915/gen9bc: Handle TGP PCH during suspend/resume Imre Deak
2021-02-16 18:08   ` Imre Deak
2021-02-17  2:36   ` Lyude Paul
2021-02-17  2:36     ` Lyude Paul
2021-02-17  2:36     ` Lyude Paul
2021-02-17  2:37     ` Lyude Paul
2021-02-17  2:37       ` Lyude Paul
2021-02-17  2:37       ` Lyude Paul
2021-02-17  7:52     ` Imre Deak
2021-02-17  7:52       ` Imre Deak
2021-02-17  7:52       ` Imre Deak

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20210216180825.GA420119@ideak-desk.fi.intel.com \
    --to=imre.deak@intel.com \
    --cc=airlied@linux.ie \
    --cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
    --cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=lyude@redhat.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.