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: Wed, 17 Feb 2021 09:52:33 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210217075233.GA443835@ideak-desk.fi.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <de45c8434b35ba9c712edf615bea4f86131aaf1a.camel@redhat.com>
On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 09:36:01PM -0500, Lyude Paul wrote:
> On Tue, 2021-02-16 at 20:08 +0200, Imre Deak wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Could you please check :)? I don't work at Intel so you have far more access to
> this information then I do.
>
> FWIW the code -looks- mostly equivalent to me (SHOTPLUG_CTL_DDI and
> SHOTPLUG_CTL_TC seem to be equivalent registers to what's set in
> spt_hpd_irq_setup()), but the icelake point codepath enables an additional port,
> and changes an additional register called SHPD_FILTER_CNT.
The register definitions for SHOTPLUG_CTL_DDI wrt. PCH_PORT_HOTPLUG and
SHOTPLUG_CTL_TC wrt. PCH_PORT_HOTPLUG2 are different even though their
addresses match.
> I'll update it to use this in the next patch, but please definitely
> confirm this. I would very much like to avoid potentially breaking
> unrelated ICP systems with this.
>
> >
> > > }
> > >
> > > 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
> >
>
> --
> Sincerely,
> Lyude Paul (she/her)
> Software Engineer at Red Hat
>
> Note: I deal with a lot of emails and have a lot of bugs on my plate. If you've
> asked me a question, are waiting for a review/merge on a patch, etc. and I
> haven't responded in a while, please feel free to send me another email to check
> on my status. I don't bite!
>
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: Wed, 17 Feb 2021 09:52:33 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210217075233.GA443835@ideak-desk.fi.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <de45c8434b35ba9c712edf615bea4f86131aaf1a.camel@redhat.com>
On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 09:36:01PM -0500, Lyude Paul wrote:
> On Tue, 2021-02-16 at 20:08 +0200, Imre Deak wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Could you please check :)? I don't work at Intel so you have far more access to
> this information then I do.
>
> FWIW the code -looks- mostly equivalent to me (SHOTPLUG_CTL_DDI and
> SHOTPLUG_CTL_TC seem to be equivalent registers to what's set in
> spt_hpd_irq_setup()), but the icelake point codepath enables an additional port,
> and changes an additional register called SHPD_FILTER_CNT.
The register definitions for SHOTPLUG_CTL_DDI wrt. PCH_PORT_HOTPLUG and
SHOTPLUG_CTL_TC wrt. PCH_PORT_HOTPLUG2 are different even though their
addresses match.
> I'll update it to use this in the next patch, but please definitely
> confirm this. I would very much like to avoid potentially breaking
> unrelated ICP systems with this.
>
> >
> > > }
> > >
> > > 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
> >
>
> --
> Sincerely,
> Lyude Paul (she/her)
> Software Engineer at Red Hat
>
> Note: I deal with a lot of emails and have a lot of bugs on my plate. If you've
> asked me a question, are waiting for a review/merge on a patch, etc. and I
> haven't responded in a while, please feel free to send me another email to check
> on my status. I don't bite!
>
_______________________________________________
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: Wed, 17 Feb 2021 09:52:33 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210217075233.GA443835@ideak-desk.fi.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <de45c8434b35ba9c712edf615bea4f86131aaf1a.camel@redhat.com>
On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 09:36:01PM -0500, Lyude Paul wrote:
> On Tue, 2021-02-16 at 20:08 +0200, Imre Deak wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Could you please check :)? I don't work at Intel so you have far more access to
> this information then I do.
>
> FWIW the code -looks- mostly equivalent to me (SHOTPLUG_CTL_DDI and
> SHOTPLUG_CTL_TC seem to be equivalent registers to what's set in
> spt_hpd_irq_setup()), but the icelake point codepath enables an additional port,
> and changes an additional register called SHPD_FILTER_CNT.
The register definitions for SHOTPLUG_CTL_DDI wrt. PCH_PORT_HOTPLUG and
SHOTPLUG_CTL_TC wrt. PCH_PORT_HOTPLUG2 are different even though their
addresses match.
> I'll update it to use this in the next patch, but please definitely
> confirm this. I would very much like to avoid potentially breaking
> unrelated ICP systems with this.
>
> >
> > > }
> > >
> > > 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
> >
>
> --
> Sincerely,
> Lyude Paul (she/her)
> Software Engineer at Red Hat
>
> Note: I deal with a lot of emails and have a lot of bugs on my plate. If you've
> asked me a question, are waiting for a review/merge on a patch, etc. and I
> haven't responded in a while, please feel free to send me another email to check
> on my status. I don't bite!
>
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-02-17 7:53 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 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2] drm/i915/gen9bc: Handle TGP PCH during suspend/resume Imre Deak
2021-02-16 18:08 ` 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 [this message]
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=20210217075233.GA443835@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.