All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [PATCH] x86/early-quirks: Extend Intel graphics stolen memory placement to 64bit
@ 2017-11-24  7:30 Joonas Lahtinen
  2017-11-24  7:35 ` Ingo Molnar
                   ` (3 more replies)
  0 siblings, 4 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Joonas Lahtinen @ 2017-11-24  7:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Intel graphics driver community testing & development
  Cc: x86, Paulo Zanoni, Matthew Auld, H . Peter Anvin, Ingo Molnar

In preparation for upcoming SKUs, allow more freedom in placement
of the Intel graphics stolen memory by BIOS to full 64bit range.

Signed-off-by: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Matthew Auld <matthew.auld@intel.com>
Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Cc: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni@intel.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Cc: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
Cc: x86@kernel.org
---
 arch/x86/kernel/early-quirks.c | 75 +++++++++++++++++++++---------------------
 1 file changed, 38 insertions(+), 37 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/early-quirks.c b/arch/x86/kernel/early-quirks.c
index 1e82f787c160..7b775f9afa16 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/early-quirks.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/early-quirks.c
@@ -243,7 +243,7 @@ static void __init intel_remapping_check(int num, int slot, int func)
 #define KB(x)	((x) * 1024UL)
 #define MB(x)	(KB (KB (x)))
 
-static size_t __init i830_tseg_size(void)
+static resource_size_t __init i830_tseg_size(void)
 {
 	u8 esmramc = read_pci_config_byte(0, 0, 0, I830_ESMRAMC);
 
@@ -256,7 +256,7 @@ static size_t __init i830_tseg_size(void)
 		return KB(512);
 }
 
-static size_t __init i845_tseg_size(void)
+static resource_size_t __init i845_tseg_size(void)
 {
 	u8 esmramc = read_pci_config_byte(0, 0, 0, I845_ESMRAMC);
 	u8 tseg_size = esmramc & I845_TSEG_SIZE_MASK;
@@ -273,7 +273,7 @@ static size_t __init i845_tseg_size(void)
 	return 0;
 }
 
-static size_t __init i85x_tseg_size(void)
+static resource_size_t __init i85x_tseg_size(void)
 {
 	u8 esmramc = read_pci_config_byte(0, 0, 0, I85X_ESMRAMC);
 
@@ -283,12 +283,12 @@ static size_t __init i85x_tseg_size(void)
 	return MB(1);
 }
 
-static size_t __init i830_mem_size(void)
+static resource_size_t __init i830_mem_size(void)
 {
 	return read_pci_config_byte(0, 0, 0, I830_DRB3) * MB(32);
 }
 
-static size_t __init i85x_mem_size(void)
+static resource_size_t __init i85x_mem_size(void)
 {
 	return read_pci_config_byte(0, 0, 1, I85X_DRB3) * MB(32);
 }
@@ -297,36 +297,36 @@ static size_t __init i85x_mem_size(void)
  * On 830/845/85x the stolen memory base isn't available in any
  * register. We need to calculate it as TOM-TSEG_SIZE-stolen_size.
  */
-static phys_addr_t __init i830_stolen_base(int num, int slot, int func,
-					   size_t stolen_size)
+static resource_size_t __init i830_stolen_base(int num, int slot, int func,
+					       resource_size_t stolen_size)
 {
-	return (phys_addr_t)i830_mem_size() - i830_tseg_size() - stolen_size;
+	return i830_mem_size() - i830_tseg_size() - stolen_size;
 }
 
-static phys_addr_t __init i845_stolen_base(int num, int slot, int func,
-					   size_t stolen_size)
+static resource_size_t __init i845_stolen_base(int num, int slot, int func,
+					       resource_size_t stolen_size)
 {
-	return (phys_addr_t)i830_mem_size() - i845_tseg_size() - stolen_size;
+	return i830_mem_size() - i845_tseg_size() - stolen_size;
 }
 
-static phys_addr_t __init i85x_stolen_base(int num, int slot, int func,
-					   size_t stolen_size)
+static resource_size_t __init i85x_stolen_base(int num, int slot, int func,
+					       resource_size_t stolen_size)
 {
-	return (phys_addr_t)i85x_mem_size() - i85x_tseg_size() - stolen_size;
+	return i85x_mem_size() - i85x_tseg_size() - stolen_size;
 }
 
-static phys_addr_t __init i865_stolen_base(int num, int slot, int func,
-					   size_t stolen_size)
+static resource_size_t __init i865_stolen_base(int num, int slot, int func,
+					       resource_size_t stolen_size)
 {
 	u16 toud = 0;
 
 	toud = read_pci_config_16(0, 0, 0, I865_TOUD);
 
-	return (phys_addr_t)(toud << 16) + i845_tseg_size();
+	return (toud << 16) + i845_tseg_size();
 }
 
-static phys_addr_t __init gen3_stolen_base(int num, int slot, int func,
-					   size_t stolen_size)
+static resource_size_t __init gen3_stolen_base(int num, int slot, int func,
+					       resource_size_t stolen_size)
 {
 	u32 bsm;
 
@@ -337,10 +337,10 @@ static phys_addr_t __init gen3_stolen_base(int num, int slot, int func,
 	 */
 	bsm = read_pci_config(num, slot, func, INTEL_BSM);
 
-	return (phys_addr_t)bsm & INTEL_BSM_MASK;
+	return bsm & INTEL_BSM_MASK;
 }
 
-static size_t __init i830_stolen_size(int num, int slot, int func)
+static resource_size_t __init i830_stolen_size(int num, int slot, int func)
 {
 	u16 gmch_ctrl;
 	u16 gms;
@@ -361,7 +361,7 @@ static size_t __init i830_stolen_size(int num, int slot, int func)
 	return 0;
 }
 
-static size_t __init gen3_stolen_size(int num, int slot, int func)
+static resource_size_t __init gen3_stolen_size(int num, int slot, int func)
 {
 	u16 gmch_ctrl;
 	u16 gms;
@@ -390,7 +390,7 @@ static size_t __init gen3_stolen_size(int num, int slot, int func)
 	return 0;
 }
 
-static size_t __init gen6_stolen_size(int num, int slot, int func)
+static resource_size_t __init gen6_stolen_size(int num, int slot, int func)
 {
 	u16 gmch_ctrl;
 	u16 gms;
@@ -398,10 +398,10 @@ static size_t __init gen6_stolen_size(int num, int slot, int func)
 	gmch_ctrl = read_pci_config_16(num, slot, func, SNB_GMCH_CTRL);
 	gms = (gmch_ctrl >> SNB_GMCH_GMS_SHIFT) & SNB_GMCH_GMS_MASK;
 
-	return (size_t)gms * MB(32);
+	return gms * MB(32);
 }
 
-static size_t __init gen8_stolen_size(int num, int slot, int func)
+static resource_size_t __init gen8_stolen_size(int num, int slot, int func)
 {
 	u16 gmch_ctrl;
 	u16 gms;
@@ -409,10 +409,10 @@ static size_t __init gen8_stolen_size(int num, int slot, int func)
 	gmch_ctrl = read_pci_config_16(num, slot, func, SNB_GMCH_CTRL);
 	gms = (gmch_ctrl >> BDW_GMCH_GMS_SHIFT) & BDW_GMCH_GMS_MASK;
 
-	return (size_t)gms * MB(32);
+	return gms * MB(32);
 }
 
-static size_t __init chv_stolen_size(int num, int slot, int func)
+static resource_size_t __init chv_stolen_size(int num, int slot, int func)
 {
 	u16 gmch_ctrl;
 	u16 gms;
@@ -426,14 +426,14 @@ static size_t __init chv_stolen_size(int num, int slot, int func)
 	 * 0x17 to 0x1d: 4MB increments start at 36MB
 	 */
 	if (gms < 0x11)
-		return (size_t)gms * MB(32);
+		return gms * MB(32);
 	else if (gms < 0x17)
-		return (size_t)(gms - 0x11 + 2) * MB(4);
+		return (gms - 0x11 + 2) * MB(4);
 	else
-		return (size_t)(gms - 0x17 + 9) * MB(4);
+		return (gms - 0x17 + 9) * MB(4);
 }
 
-static size_t __init gen9_stolen_size(int num, int slot, int func)
+static resource_size_t __init gen9_stolen_size(int num, int slot, int func)
 {
 	u16 gmch_ctrl;
 	u16 gms;
@@ -444,14 +444,15 @@ static size_t __init gen9_stolen_size(int num, int slot, int func)
 	/* 0x0  to 0xef: 32MB increments starting at 0MB */
 	/* 0xf0 to 0xfe: 4MB increments starting at 4MB */
 	if (gms < 0xf0)
-		return (size_t)gms * MB(32);
+		return gms * MB(32);
 	else
-		return (size_t)(gms - 0xf0 + 1) * MB(4);
+		return (gms - 0xf0 + 1) * MB(4);
 }
 
 struct intel_early_ops {
-	size_t (*stolen_size)(int num, int slot, int func);
-	phys_addr_t (*stolen_base)(int num, int slot, int func, size_t size);
+	resource_size_t (*stolen_size)(int num, int slot, int func);
+	resource_size_t (*stolen_base)(int num, int slot, int func,
+				       resource_size_t size);
 };
 
 static const struct intel_early_ops i830_early_ops __initconst = {
@@ -535,8 +536,8 @@ static void __init
 intel_graphics_stolen(int num, int slot, int func,
 		      const struct intel_early_ops *early_ops)
 {
-	phys_addr_t base, end;
-	size_t size;
+	resource_size_t base, size;
+	resource_size_t end;
 
 	size = early_ops->stolen_size(num, slot, func);
 	base = early_ops->stolen_base(num, slot, func, size);
-- 
2.13.6

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

^ permalink raw reply related	[flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] x86/early-quirks: Extend Intel graphics stolen memory placement to 64bit
  2017-11-24  7:30 [PATCH] x86/early-quirks: Extend Intel graphics stolen memory placement to 64bit Joonas Lahtinen
@ 2017-11-24  7:35 ` Ingo Molnar
  2017-11-24 10:58   ` Joonas Lahtinen
  2017-11-24  7:50 ` ✗ Fi.CI.BAT: warning for " Patchwork
                   ` (2 subsequent siblings)
  3 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Ingo Molnar @ 2017-11-24  7:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Joonas Lahtinen
  Cc: Paulo Zanoni,
	Intel graphics driver community testing & development, x86,
	Matthew Auld, H . Peter Anvin


* Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com> wrote:

> In preparation for upcoming SKUs, allow more freedom in placement
> of the Intel graphics stolen memory by BIOS to full 64bit range.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com>
> Cc: Matthew Auld <matthew.auld@intel.com>
> Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
> Cc: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni@intel.com>
> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
> Cc: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
> Cc: x86@kernel.org
> ---
>  arch/x86/kernel/early-quirks.c | 75 +++++++++++++++++++++---------------------
>  1 file changed, 38 insertions(+), 37 deletions(-)

So I'm wondering how this interacts with:

  drm/i915: export the stolen region as a resource

?

Thanks,

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

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* ✗ Fi.CI.BAT: warning for x86/early-quirks: Extend Intel graphics stolen memory placement to 64bit
  2017-11-24  7:30 [PATCH] x86/early-quirks: Extend Intel graphics stolen memory placement to 64bit Joonas Lahtinen
  2017-11-24  7:35 ` Ingo Molnar
@ 2017-11-24  7:50 ` Patchwork
  2017-11-24 12:36 ` [PATCH] " Chris Wilson
  2017-11-24 13:55 ` Ville Syrjälä
  3 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Patchwork @ 2017-11-24  7:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Joonas Lahtinen; +Cc: intel-gfx

== Series Details ==

Series: x86/early-quirks: Extend Intel graphics stolen memory placement to 64bit
URL   : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/34342/
State : warning

== Summary ==

Series 34342v1 x86/early-quirks: Extend Intel graphics stolen memory placement to 64bit
https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/api/1.0/series/34342/revisions/1/mbox/

Test kms_force_connector_basic:
        Subgroup prune-stale-modes:
                pass       -> SKIP       (fi-snb-2600)
Test kms_pipe_crc_basic:
        Subgroup suspend-read-crc-pipe-c:
                incomplete -> PASS       (fi-cfl-s2) fdo#103878

fdo#103878 https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=103878

fi-bdw-5557u     total:289  pass:268  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:21  time:449s
fi-bdw-gvtdvm    total:289  pass:265  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:24  time:463s
fi-blb-e6850     total:289  pass:223  dwarn:1   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:65  time:382s
fi-bsw-n3050     total:289  pass:243  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:46  time:548s
fi-bwr-2160      total:289  pass:183  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:106 time:278s
fi-bxt-dsi       total:289  pass:259  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:30  time:507s
fi-bxt-j4205     total:289  pass:260  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:29  time:501s
fi-byt-j1900     total:289  pass:254  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:35  time:507s
fi-byt-n2820     total:289  pass:250  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:39  time:491s
fi-cfl-s2        total:289  pass:263  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:26  time:604s
fi-elk-e7500     total:289  pass:229  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:60  time:427s
fi-gdg-551       total:289  pass:178  dwarn:1   dfail:0   fail:1   skip:109 time:270s
fi-glk-1         total:289  pass:261  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:28  time:541s
fi-hsw-4770      total:289  pass:262  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:27  time:431s
fi-hsw-4770r     total:289  pass:262  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:27  time:436s
fi-ilk-650       total:289  pass:228  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:61  time:432s
fi-ivb-3520m     total:289  pass:260  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:29  time:491s
fi-ivb-3770      total:289  pass:260  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:29  time:464s
fi-pnv-d510      total:289  pass:222  dwarn:1   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:66  time:589s
fi-skl-6260u     total:289  pass:269  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:20  time:454s
fi-skl-6600u     total:289  pass:262  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:27  time:547s
fi-skl-6700hq    total:289  pass:263  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:26  time:566s
fi-skl-6700k     total:289  pass:265  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:24  time:522s
fi-skl-6770hq    total:289  pass:269  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:20  time:495s
fi-skl-gvtdvm    total:289  pass:266  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:23  time:464s
fi-snb-2520m     total:289  pass:250  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:39  time:568s
fi-snb-2600      total:289  pass:248  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:41  time:432s
Blacklisted hosts:
fi-cnl-y         total:245  pass:220  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:24 
fi-glk-dsi       total:289  pass:258  dwarn:1   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:30  time:501s
fi-kbl-7500u     total:289  pass:264  dwarn:1   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:24  time:486s
fi-kbl-7560u     total:289  pass:270  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:19  time:528s
fi-kbl-7567u     total:289  pass:269  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:20  time:478s
fi-kbl-r         total:289  pass:262  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:27  time:535s

b407e5f38397c0c22b5056a1664753287993b152 drm-tip: 2017y-11m-23d-16h-14m-59s UTC integration manifest
c4c774243f36 x86/early-quirks: Extend Intel graphics stolen memory placement to 64bit

== Logs ==

For more details see: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_7272/
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] x86/early-quirks: Extend Intel graphics stolen memory placement to 64bit
  2017-11-24  7:35 ` Ingo Molnar
@ 2017-11-24 10:58   ` Joonas Lahtinen
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Joonas Lahtinen @ 2017-11-24 10:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Ingo Molnar, Matthew Auld
  Cc: x86, Intel graphics driver community testing & development,
	H . Peter Anvin, Paulo Zanoni

On Fri, 2017-11-24 at 08:35 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> 
> > In preparation for upcoming SKUs, allow more freedom in placement
> > of the Intel graphics stolen memory by BIOS to full 64bit range.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com>
> > Cc: Matthew Auld <matthew.auld@intel.com>
> > Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
> > Cc: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni@intel.com>
> > Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
> > Cc: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
> > Cc: x86@kernel.org
> > ---
> >  arch/x86/kernel/early-quirks.c | 75 +++++++++++++++++++++---------------------
> >  1 file changed, 38 insertions(+), 37 deletions(-)
> 
> So I'm wondering how this interacts with:
> 
>   drm/i915: export the stolen region as a resource

I replied in the other mail thread. My suggestion is to squash the
early-quirks portion of that other patch here for a clean split, then
we can iterate purely on the i915 as necessary.

Sorry for confusion :)

Regards, Joonas
-- 
Joonas Lahtinen
Open Source Technology Center
Intel Corporation
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] x86/early-quirks: Extend Intel graphics stolen memory placement to 64bit
  2017-11-24  7:30 [PATCH] x86/early-quirks: Extend Intel graphics stolen memory placement to 64bit Joonas Lahtinen
  2017-11-24  7:35 ` Ingo Molnar
  2017-11-24  7:50 ` ✗ Fi.CI.BAT: warning for " Patchwork
@ 2017-11-24 12:36 ` Chris Wilson
  2017-11-24 13:55 ` Ville Syrjälä
  3 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Chris Wilson @ 2017-11-24 12:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Joonas Lahtinen,
	Intel graphics driver community testing & development
  Cc: Paulo Zanoni, x86, Matthew Auld, H . Peter Anvin, Ingo Molnar

Quoting Joonas Lahtinen (2017-11-24 07:30:17)
> In preparation for upcoming SKUs, allow more freedom in placement
> of the Intel graphics stolen memory by BIOS to full 64bit range.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com>
> Cc: Matthew Auld <matthew.auld@intel.com>
> Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
> Cc: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni@intel.com>
> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
> Cc: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
> Cc: x86@kernel.org
> ---
>  arch/x86/kernel/early-quirks.c | 75 +++++++++++++++++++++---------------------
>  1 file changed, 38 insertions(+), 37 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/early-quirks.c b/arch/x86/kernel/early-quirks.c
> index 1e82f787c160..7b775f9afa16 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/early-quirks.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/early-quirks.c
> @@ -243,7 +243,7 @@ static void __init intel_remapping_check(int num, int slot, int func)
>  #define KB(x)  ((x) * 1024UL)
>  #define MB(x)  (KB (KB (x)))
>  
> -static size_t __init i830_tseg_size(void)
> +static resource_size_t __init i830_tseg_size(void)
>  {
>         u8 esmramc = read_pci_config_byte(0, 0, 0, I830_ESMRAMC);
>  
> @@ -256,7 +256,7 @@ static size_t __init i830_tseg_size(void)
>                 return KB(512);
>  }
>  
> -static size_t __init i845_tseg_size(void)
> +static resource_size_t __init i845_tseg_size(void)
>  {
>         u8 esmramc = read_pci_config_byte(0, 0, 0, I845_ESMRAMC);
>         u8 tseg_size = esmramc & I845_TSEG_SIZE_MASK;
> @@ -273,7 +273,7 @@ static size_t __init i845_tseg_size(void)
>         return 0;
>  }
>  
> -static size_t __init i85x_tseg_size(void)
> +static resource_size_t __init i85x_tseg_size(void)
>  {
>         u8 esmramc = read_pci_config_byte(0, 0, 0, I85X_ESMRAMC);
>  
> @@ -283,12 +283,12 @@ static size_t __init i85x_tseg_size(void)
>         return MB(1);
>  }
>  
> -static size_t __init i830_mem_size(void)
> +static resource_size_t __init i830_mem_size(void)
>  {
>         return read_pci_config_byte(0, 0, 0, I830_DRB3) * MB(32);
>  }
>  
> -static size_t __init i85x_mem_size(void)
> +static resource_size_t __init i85x_mem_size(void)
>  {
>         return read_pci_config_byte(0, 0, 1, I85X_DRB3) * MB(32);
>  }
> @@ -297,36 +297,36 @@ static size_t __init i85x_mem_size(void)
>   * On 830/845/85x the stolen memory base isn't available in any
>   * register. We need to calculate it as TOM-TSEG_SIZE-stolen_size.
>   */
> -static phys_addr_t __init i830_stolen_base(int num, int slot, int func,
> -                                          size_t stolen_size)
> +static resource_size_t __init i830_stolen_base(int num, int slot, int func,
> +                                              resource_size_t stolen_size)
>  {
> -       return (phys_addr_t)i830_mem_size() - i830_tseg_size() - stolen_size;
> +       return i830_mem_size() - i830_tseg_size() - stolen_size;
>  }
>  
> -static phys_addr_t __init i845_stolen_base(int num, int slot, int func,
> -                                          size_t stolen_size)
> +static resource_size_t __init i845_stolen_base(int num, int slot, int func,
> +                                              resource_size_t stolen_size)
>  {
> -       return (phys_addr_t)i830_mem_size() - i845_tseg_size() - stolen_size;
> +       return i830_mem_size() - i845_tseg_size() - stolen_size;
>  }
>  
> -static phys_addr_t __init i85x_stolen_base(int num, int slot, int func,
> -                                          size_t stolen_size)
> +static resource_size_t __init i85x_stolen_base(int num, int slot, int func,
> +                                              resource_size_t stolen_size)
>  {
> -       return (phys_addr_t)i85x_mem_size() - i85x_tseg_size() - stolen_size;
> +       return i85x_mem_size() - i85x_tseg_size() - stolen_size;
>  }
>  
> -static phys_addr_t __init i865_stolen_base(int num, int slot, int func,
> -                                          size_t stolen_size)
> +static resource_size_t __init i865_stolen_base(int num, int slot, int func,
> +                                              resource_size_t stolen_size)
>  {
>         u16 toud = 0;
>  
>         toud = read_pci_config_16(0, 0, 0, I865_TOUD);
>  
> -       return (phys_addr_t)(toud << 16) + i845_tseg_size();
> +       return (toud << 16) + i845_tseg_size();

Uh oh, this is a u16 << 16, that's not going to work. (We have the same
bug in i915.ko, so you do get a told you so on the merits of bug
duplication.)

All the other cases are u16 * UL, which should be promoted to UL prior
to the calculation and so be safe.

Other than it looks fine,
Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
-Chris
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] x86/early-quirks: Extend Intel graphics stolen memory placement to 64bit
  2017-11-24  7:30 [PATCH] x86/early-quirks: Extend Intel graphics stolen memory placement to 64bit Joonas Lahtinen
                   ` (2 preceding siblings ...)
  2017-11-24 12:36 ` [PATCH] " Chris Wilson
@ 2017-11-24 13:55 ` Ville Syrjälä
  3 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Ville Syrjälä @ 2017-11-24 13:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Joonas Lahtinen
  Cc: Paulo Zanoni,
	Intel graphics driver community testing & development, x86,
	Matthew Auld, H . Peter Anvin, Ingo Molnar

On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 09:30:17AM +0200, Joonas Lahtinen wrote:
> @@ -426,14 +426,14 @@ static size_t __init chv_stolen_size(int num, int slot, int func)
>  	 * 0x17 to 0x1d: 4MB increments start at 36MB
>  	 */
>  	if (gms < 0x11)
> -		return (size_t)gms * MB(32);
> +		return gms * MB(32);
>  	else if (gms < 0x17)
> -		return (size_t)(gms - 0x11 + 2) * MB(4);
> +		return (gms - 0x11 + 2) * MB(4);
>  	else
> -		return (size_t)(gms - 0x17 + 9) * MB(4);
> +		return (gms - 0x17 + 9) * MB(4);

Unrelated random idea: Maybe someone could replace the
semi-magic looking +2,+9 etc. with just +MB(whatever)?

-- 
Ville Syrjälä
Intel OTC
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2017-11-24 13:55 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2017-11-24  7:30 [PATCH] x86/early-quirks: Extend Intel graphics stolen memory placement to 64bit Joonas Lahtinen
2017-11-24  7:35 ` Ingo Molnar
2017-11-24 10:58   ` Joonas Lahtinen
2017-11-24  7:50 ` ✗ Fi.CI.BAT: warning for " Patchwork
2017-11-24 12:36 ` [PATCH] " Chris Wilson
2017-11-24 13:55 ` Ville Syrjälä

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.