Question about porting VCE1 to amdgpu

Question about porting VCE1 to amdgpu

[Alexandre Demers]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 928 bytes --]

Hi,

I've been working on porting VCE1 from radeon to amdgpu in the last few
weeks. I'm pretty much done and I've enabled the functionality to see how
it goes. However, I ended up with an error on the firmware validation (size
doesn't seem to fit), thus failing completely in loading the driver. I'm
testing on a R9 280X (Tahiti).

Three questions then:
- Would we need a different firmware version with a different "hdr" for the
amdgpu driver?
- Wouldn't it be better to continue loading the driver while having VCE
disabled IF we fail when loading or validating the FW? Completely failing
to load the driver for this reason seems overkill IMO, since nothing has
been loaded in memory and no registry have been modified up to that point.
- Would it be a good idea to send a patch as a RFC so some of you could
help me finish the job and maybe pinpoint where the last modifications need
to be done?

Thank you!
Alexandre Demers

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 1096 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 154 bytes --]

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

Re: Question about porting VCE1 to amdgpu

[Christian König]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2313 bytes --]

> - Would we need a different firmware version with a different "hdr" 
> for the amdgpu driver?
Yes, we should probably release the latest one instead of reusing the 
one used with radeon.

BTW: Does VCE work on CIK? Alex, don't we run into the same issue there 
as well?

> - Wouldn't it be better to continue loading the driver while having 
> VCE disabled IF we fail when loading or validating the FW? Completely 
> failing to load the driver for this reason seems overkill IMO, since 
> nothing has been loaded in memory and no registry have been modified 
> up to that point.
UVD and VCE are actually needed for correct power management. When the 
blocks fail to initialize you usually sooner or later run into problems 
with power management (e.g. stuck inside a certain power level).

> - Would it be a good idea to send a patch as a RFC so some of you 
> could help me finish the job and maybe pinpoint where the last 
> modifications need to be done?
Well you could, but to be honest without AMD releasing new firmware that 
is most likely a futile effort.

Regards,
Christian.

Am 14.06.2017 um 18:22 schrieb Alexandre Demers:
> Hi,
>
> I've been working on porting VCE1 from radeon to amdgpu in the last 
> few weeks. I'm pretty much done and I've enabled the functionality to 
> see how it goes. However, I ended up with an error on the firmware 
> validation (size doesn't seem to fit), thus failing completely in 
> loading the driver. I'm testing on a R9 280X (Tahiti).
>
> Three questions then:
> - Would we need a different firmware version with a different "hdr" 
> for the amdgpu driver?
> - Wouldn't it be better to continue loading the driver while having 
> VCE disabled IF we fail when loading or validating the FW? Completely 
> failing to load the driver for this reason seems overkill IMO, since 
> nothing has been loaded in memory and no registry have been modified 
> up to that point.
> - Would it be a good idea to send a patch as a RFC so some of you 
> could help me finish the job and maybe pinpoint where the last 
> modifications need to be done?
>
> Thank you!
> Alexandre Demers
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> amd-gfx mailing list
> amd-gfx-PD4FTy7X32lNgt0PjOBp9y5qC8QIuHrW@public.gmane.org
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx



[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 3695 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 154 bytes --]

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

RE: Question about porting VCE1 to amdgpu

[Deucher, Alexander]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2774 bytes --]


From: amd-gfx [mailto:amd-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org] On Behalf Of Christian König
Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2017 12:37 PM
To: Alexandre Demers; Freedesktop - AMD-gfx
Subject: Re: Question about porting VCE1 to amdgpu

- Would we need a different firmware version with a different "hdr" for the amdgpu driver?
Yes, we should probably release the latest one instead of reusing the one used with radeon.

Actually, we should probably stick the same one as radeon for now until we can verify the new firmware in general.  Easier to start with a known working case.


BTW: Does VCE work on CIK? Alex, don't we run into the same issue there as well?

VCE works on CIK.  We ported VCE and UVD to CIK as part of the initial amdgpu bring up.

Alex


- Wouldn't it be better to continue loading the driver while having VCE disabled IF we fail when loading or validating the FW? Completely failing to load the driver for this reason seems overkill IMO, since nothing has been loaded in memory and no registry have been modified up to that point.
UVD and VCE are actually needed for correct power management. When the blocks fail to initialize you usually sooner or later run into problems with power management (e.g. stuck inside a certain power level).


- Would it be a good idea to send a patch as a RFC so some of you could help me finish the job and maybe pinpoint where the last modifications need to be done?
Well you could, but to be honest without AMD releasing new firmware that is most likely a futile effort.

Regards,
Christian.

Am 14.06.2017 um 18:22 schrieb Alexandre Demers:
Hi,

I've been working on porting VCE1 from radeon to amdgpu in the last few weeks. I'm pretty much done and I've enabled the functionality to see how it goes. However, I ended up with an error on the firmware validation (size doesn't seem to fit), thus failing completely in loading the driver. I'm testing on a R9 280X (Tahiti).

Three questions then:
- Would we need a different firmware version with a different "hdr" for the amdgpu driver?
- Wouldn't it be better to continue loading the driver while having VCE disabled IF we fail when loading or validating the FW? Completely failing to load the driver for this reason seems overkill IMO, since nothing has been loaded in memory and no registry have been modified up to that point.
- Would it be a good idea to send a patch as a RFC so some of you could help me finish the job and maybe pinpoint where the last modifications need to be done?

Thank you!
Alexandre Demers




_______________________________________________

amd-gfx mailing list

amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org<mailto:amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>

https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx



[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 7898 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 154 bytes --]

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

Re: Question about porting VCE1 to amdgpu

[Alexandre Demers]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3814 bytes --]

On Wed, 14 Jun 2017 at 13:09 Deucher, Alexander <Alexander.Deucher-5C7GfCeVMHo@public.gmane.org>
wrote:

>
>
> *From:* amd-gfx [mailto:amd-gfx-bounces-PD4FTy7X32lNgt0PjOBp9y5qC8QIuHrW@public.gmane.org] *On Behalf
> Of *Christian König
> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 14, 2017 12:37 PM
> *To:* Alexandre Demers; Freedesktop - AMD-gfx
> *Subject:* Re: Question about porting VCE1 to amdgpu
>
>
>
> - Would we need a different firmware version with a different "hdr" for
> the amdgpu driver?
>
> Yes, we should probably release the latest one instead of reusing the one
> used with radeon.
>
> Actually, we should probably stick the same one as radeon for now until we
> can verify the new firmware in general.  Easier to start with a known
> working case.
>

OK. Then,  is it expected to have a validation failure with the current
firmware? Is the header compatible with how the validation is done under
VCE2 and others or should I keep how it was done under radeon?


>
>
> BTW: Does VCE work on CIK? Alex, don't we run into the same issue there as
> well?
>
> VCE works on CIK.  We ported VCE and UVD to CIK as part of the initial
> amdgpu bring up.
>

I've been using VCE2 port as my template for VCE1. My initial intention was
to work on UVD, but I ended up plugging in VCE in the first place. UVD is
on my todo list right next, I was expecting to working on it after fixing
the VCE part.


>
> Alex
>
>
>
> - Wouldn't it be better to continue loading the driver while having VCE
> disabled IF we fail when loading or validating the FW? Completely failing
> to load the driver for this reason seems overkill IMO, since nothing has
> been loaded in memory and no registry have been modified up to that point.
>
> UVD and VCE are actually needed for correct power management. When the
> blocks fail to initialize you usually sooner or later run into problems
> with power management (e.g. stuck inside a certain power level).
>
>
OK, but right now it is disabled, so the situation wouldn't be worst isn't
it?


> - Would it be a good idea to send a patch as a RFC so some of you could
> help me finish the job and maybe pinpoint where the last modifications need
> to be done?
>
> Well you could, but to be honest without AMD releasing new firmware that
> is most likely a futile effort.
>

I'll send a patch then, and we'll navigate from there. This will allow me
to work on UVD in parallel.

Alexandre Demers


>
> Regards,
> Christian.
>
> Am 14.06.2017 um 18:22 schrieb Alexandre Demers:
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> I've been working on porting VCE1 from radeon to amdgpu in the last few
> weeks. I'm pretty much done and I've enabled the functionality to see how
> it goes. However, I ended up with an error on the firmware validation (size
> doesn't seem to fit), thus failing completely in loading the driver. I'm
> testing on a R9 280X (Tahiti).
>
>
>
> Three questions then:
>
> - Would we need a different firmware version with a different "hdr" for
> the amdgpu driver?
>
> - Wouldn't it be better to continue loading the driver while having VCE
> disabled IF we fail when loading or validating the FW? Completely failing
> to load the driver for this reason seems overkill IMO, since nothing has
> been loaded in memory and no registry have been modified up to that point.
>
> - Would it be a good idea to send a patch as a RFC so some of you could
> help me finish the job and maybe pinpoint where the last modifications need
> to be done?
>
>
>
> Thank you!
>
> Alexandre Demers
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> amd-gfx mailing list
>
> amd-gfx-PD4FTy7X32lNgt0PjOBp9y5qC8QIuHrW@public.gmane.org
>
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx
>
>
>

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 10216 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 154 bytes --]

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

Re: Question about porting VCE1 to amdgpu

[trevor.davenport-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w]

On 6/14/17, Alexandre Demers <alexandre.f.demers@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Jun 2017 at 13:09 Deucher, Alexander <Alexander.Deucher@amd.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> *From:* amd-gfx [mailto:amd-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org] *On Behalf
>> Of *Christian König
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 14, 2017 12:37 PM
>> *To:* Alexandre Demers; Freedesktop - AMD-gfx
>> *Subject:* Re: Question about porting VCE1 to amdgpu
>>
>>
>>
>> - Would we need a different firmware version with a different "hdr" for
>> the amdgpu driver?
>>
>> Yes, we should probably release the latest one instead of reusing the one
>> used with radeon.
>>
>> Actually, we should probably stick the same one as radeon for now until
>> we
>> can verify the new firmware in general.  Easier to start with a known
>> working case.
>>
>
> OK. Then,  is it expected to have a validation failure with the current
> firmware? Is the header compatible with how the validation is done under
> VCE2 and others or should I keep how it was done under radeon?
>

CIK uses the same firmware as radeon just with a header added(you can
compare BONAIRE_uvd.bin and bonaire_uvd.bin to see).

I had started working on getting UVD working but had to put that work
off due to moving(still not to a point where I can resume work).  I
had just tried adding the header but was getting a failure on ringtest
before I had to put it off.

If you don't add the header you'll need to add a fallback path that
tries loading firmware without the header.

Trevor




>>
>>
>> BTW: Does VCE work on CIK? Alex, don't we run into the same issue there
>> as
>> well?
>>
>> VCE works on CIK.  We ported VCE and UVD to CIK as part of the initial
>> amdgpu bring up.
>>
>
> I've been using VCE2 port as my template for VCE1. My initial intention was
> to work on UVD, but I ended up plugging in VCE in the first place. UVD is
> on my todo list right next, I was expecting to working on it after fixing
> the VCE part.
>
>
>>
>> Alex
>>
>>
>>
>> - Wouldn't it be better to continue loading the driver while having VCE
>> disabled IF we fail when loading or validating the FW? Completely failing
>> to load the driver for this reason seems overkill IMO, since nothing has
>> been loaded in memory and no registry have been modified up to that
>> point.
>>
>> UVD and VCE are actually needed for correct power management. When the
>> blocks fail to initialize you usually sooner or later run into problems
>> with power management (e.g. stuck inside a certain power level).
>>
>>
> OK, but right now it is disabled, so the situation wouldn't be worst isn't
> it?
>
>
>> - Would it be a good idea to send a patch as a RFC so some of you could
>> help me finish the job and maybe pinpoint where the last modifications
>> need
>> to be done?
>>
>> Well you could, but to be honest without AMD releasing new firmware that
>> is most likely a futile effort.
>>
>
> I'll send a patch then, and we'll navigate from there. This will allow me
> to work on UVD in parallel.
>
> Alexandre Demers
>
>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Christian.
>>
>> Am 14.06.2017 um 18:22 schrieb Alexandre Demers:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>>
>> I've been working on porting VCE1 from radeon to amdgpu in the last few
>> weeks. I'm pretty much done and I've enabled the functionality to see how
>> it goes. However, I ended up with an error on the firmware validation
>> (size
>> doesn't seem to fit), thus failing completely in loading the driver. I'm
>> testing on a R9 280X (Tahiti).
>>
>>
>>
>> Three questions then:
>>
>> - Would we need a different firmware version with a different "hdr" for
>> the amdgpu driver?
>>
>> - Wouldn't it be better to continue loading the driver while having VCE
>> disabled IF we fail when loading or validating the FW? Completely failing
>> to load the driver for this reason seems overkill IMO, since nothing has
>> been loaded in memory and no registry have been modified up to that
>> point.
>>
>> - Would it be a good idea to send a patch as a RFC so some of you could
>> help me finish the job and maybe pinpoint where the last modifications
>> need
>> to be done?
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank you!
>>
>> Alexandre Demers
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> amd-gfx mailing list
>>
>> amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
>>
>> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx
>>
>>
>>
>
_______________________________________________
amd-gfx mailing list
amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx

Re: Question about porting VCE1 to amdgpu

[Christian König]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5008 bytes --]

> OK. Then,  is it expected to have a validation failure with the 
> current firmware?
Yeah, that won't work. We never released the firmware with the header 
for SI parts.

See for CIK we have upper and lower case firmware files, the lower case 
are the new ones with the header.

> I've been using VCE2 port as my template for VCE1. My initial 
> intention was to work on UVD, but I ended up plugging in VCE in the 
> first place. UVD is on my todo list right next, I was expecting to 
> working on it after fixing the VCE part.
That stuff would be really nice to get fixed. But i fear you won't get 
far without AMD internal help. I will see what I can do about that.

Thanks for the effort,
Christian.

Am 14.06.2017 um 19:30 schrieb Alexandre Demers:
> On Wed, 14 Jun 2017 at 13:09 Deucher, Alexander 
> <Alexander.Deucher-5C7GfCeVMHo@public.gmane.org <mailto:Alexander.Deucher-5C7GfCeVMHo@public.gmane.org>> wrote:
>
>     *From:*amd-gfx [mailto:amd-gfx-bounces-PD4FTy7X32lNgt0PjOBp9y5qC8QIuHrW@public.gmane.org
>     <mailto:amd-gfx-bounces-PD4FTy7X32lNgt0PjOBp9y5qC8QIuHrW@public.gmane.org>] *On Behalf Of
>     *Christian König
>     *Sent:* Wednesday, June 14, 2017 12:37 PM
>     *To:* Alexandre Demers; Freedesktop - AMD-gfx
>     *Subject:* Re: Question about porting VCE1 to amdgpu
>
>         - Would we need a different firmware version with a different
>         "hdr" for the amdgpu driver?
>
>     Yes, we should probably release the latest one instead of reusing
>     the one used with radeon.
>
>     Actually, we should probably stick the same one as radeon for now
>     until we can verify the new firmware in general.  Easier to start
>     with a known working case.
>
> OK. Then,  is it expected to have a validation failure with the 
> current firmware? Is the header compatible with how the validation is 
> done under VCE2 and others or should I keep how it was done under radeon?
>
>
>     BTW: Does VCE work on CIK? Alex, don't we run into the same issue
>     there as well?
>
>     VCE works on CIK.  We ported VCE and UVD to CIK as part of the
>     initial amdgpu bring up.
>
> I've been using VCE2 port as my template for VCE1. My initial 
> intention was to work on UVD, but I ended up plugging in VCE in the 
> first place. UVD is on my todo list right next, I was expecting to 
> working on it after fixing the VCE part.
>
>     Alex
>
>
>
>     - Wouldn't it be better to continue loading the driver while
>     having VCE disabled IF we fail when loading or validating the FW?
>     Completely failing to load the driver for this reason seems
>     overkill IMO, since nothing has been loaded in memory and no
>     registry have been modified up to that point.
>
>     UVD and VCE are actually needed for correct power management. When
>     the blocks fail to initialize you usually sooner or later run into
>     problems with power management (e.g. stuck inside a certain power
>     level).
>
> OK, but right now it is disabled, so the situation wouldn't be worst 
> isn't it?
>
>
>     - Would it be a good idea to send a patch as a RFC so some of you
>     could help me finish the job and maybe pinpoint where the last
>     modifications need to be done?
>
>     Well you could, but to be honest without AMD releasing new
>     firmware that is most likely a futile effort.
>
>
> I'll send a patch then, and we'll navigate from there. This will allow 
> me to work on UVD in parallel.
>
> Alexandre Demers
>
>
>     Regards,
>     Christian.
>
>     Am 14.06.2017 um 18:22 schrieb Alexandre Demers:
>
>         Hi,
>
>         I've been working on porting VCE1 from radeon to amdgpu in the
>         last few weeks. I'm pretty much done and I've enabled the
>         functionality to see how it goes. However, I ended up with an
>         error on the firmware validation (size doesn't seem to fit),
>         thus failing completely in loading the driver. I'm testing on
>         a R9 280X (Tahiti).
>
>         Three questions then:
>
>         - Would we need a different firmware version with a different
>         "hdr" for the amdgpu driver?
>
>         - Wouldn't it be better to continue loading the driver while
>         having VCE disabled IF we fail when loading or validating the
>         FW? Completely failing to load the driver for this reason
>         seems overkill IMO, since nothing has been loaded in memory
>         and no registry have been modified up to that point.
>
>         - Would it be a good idea to send a patch as a RFC so some of
>         you could help me finish the job and maybe pinpoint where the
>         last modifications need to be done?
>
>         Thank you!
>
>         Alexandre Demers
>
>
>
>
>         _______________________________________________
>
>         amd-gfx mailing list
>
>         amd-gfx-PD4FTy7X32lNgt0PjOBp9y5qC8QIuHrW@public.gmane.org
>         <mailto:amd-gfx-PD4FTy7X32lNgt0PjOBp9y5qC8QIuHrW@public.gmane.org>
>
>         https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx
>


[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 16519 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 154 bytes --]

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

RE: Question about porting VCE1 to amdgpu

[Deucher, Alexander]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4034 bytes --]


From: Alexandre Demers [mailto:alexandre.f.demers@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2017 1:30 PM
To: Deucher, Alexander; Christian König; Freedesktop - AMD-gfx
Subject: Re: Question about porting VCE1 to amdgpu

On Wed, 14 Jun 2017 at 13:09 Deucher, Alexander <Alexander.Deucher@amd.com<mailto:Alexander.Deucher@amd.com>> wrote:

From: amd-gfx [mailto:amd-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org<mailto:amd-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org>] On Behalf Of Christian König
Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2017 12:37 PM
To: Alexandre Demers; Freedesktop - AMD-gfx
Subject: Re: Question about porting VCE1 to amdgpu

- Would we need a different firmware version with a different "hdr" for the amdgpu driver?
Yes, we should probably release the latest one instead of reusing the one used with radeon.
Actually, we should probably stick the same one as radeon for now until we can verify the new firmware in general.  Easier to start with a known working case.

OK. Then,  is it expected to have a validation failure with the current firmware? Is the header compatible with how the validation is done under VCE2 and others or should I keep how it was done under radeon?
There is no header on the multi-media firmware from radeon, so you'd need to add one.  The header is documented in amdgpu_ucode.h,  All you'd need to do is prepend the header to the existing firmware image.

Alex



BTW: Does VCE work on CIK? Alex, don't we run into the same issue there as well?
VCE works on CIK.  We ported VCE and UVD to CIK as part of the initial amdgpu bring up.

I've been using VCE2 port as my template for VCE1. My initial intention was to work on UVD, but I ended up plugging in VCE in the first place. UVD is on my todo list right next, I was expecting to working on it after fixing the VCE part.


Alex

- Wouldn't it be better to continue loading the driver while having VCE disabled IF we fail when loading or validating the FW? Completely failing to load the driver for this reason seems overkill IMO, since nothing has been loaded in memory and no registry have been modified up to that point.
UVD and VCE are actually needed for correct power management. When the blocks fail to initialize you usually sooner or later run into problems with power management (e.g. stuck inside a certain power level).

OK, but right now it is disabled, so the situation wouldn't be worst isn't it?


- Would it be a good idea to send a patch as a RFC so some of you could help me finish the job and maybe pinpoint where the last modifications need to be done?
Well you could, but to be honest without AMD releasing new firmware that is most likely a futile effort.

I'll send a patch then, and we'll navigate from there. This will allow me to work on UVD in parallel.

Alexandre Demers


Regards,
Christian.

Am 14.06.2017 um 18:22 schrieb Alexandre Demers:
Hi,

I've been working on porting VCE1 from radeon to amdgpu in the last few weeks. I'm pretty much done and I've enabled the functionality to see how it goes. However, I ended up with an error on the firmware validation (size doesn't seem to fit), thus failing completely in loading the driver. I'm testing on a R9 280X (Tahiti).

Three questions then:
- Would we need a different firmware version with a different "hdr" for the amdgpu driver?
- Wouldn't it be better to continue loading the driver while having VCE disabled IF we fail when loading or validating the FW? Completely failing to load the driver for this reason seems overkill IMO, since nothing has been loaded in memory and no registry have been modified up to that point.
- Would it be a good idea to send a patch as a RFC so some of you could help me finish the job and maybe pinpoint where the last modifications need to be done?

Thank you!
Alexandre Demers



_______________________________________________

amd-gfx mailing list

amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org<mailto:amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>

https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx



[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 15091 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 154 bytes --]

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

Re: Question about porting VCE1 to amdgpu

[Alexandre Demers]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5145 bytes --]

Just a quick update: things a getting into shape slowly since my paternal
vacancy is over, but I'm still progressing. I'm debugging things as I can.
I managed to work around the missing header with the current firmware after
analyzing what it contains and where it is used.

I'm more interested than ever to have VCE and UVD ported to amdgpu, since
we now have cards from the 300 series at work (one based on GCN 1, the
other on GCN 2).

By the way, the R7 360 (based on GCN 2, Bonaire Pro) fails to load the
amdgpu driver because of an error in VCE 2 implementation.

I'll keep you up to date.

Alexandre

On Wed, 14 Jun 2017 at 14:22 Deucher, Alexander <Alexander.Deucher-5C7GfCeVMHo@public.gmane.org>
wrote:

>
>
> *From:* Alexandre Demers [mailto:alexandre.f.demers-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 14, 2017 1:30 PM
> *To:* Deucher, Alexander; Christian König; Freedesktop - AMD-gfx
>
>
> *Subject:* Re: Question about porting VCE1 to amdgpu
>
> On Wed, 14 Jun 2017 at 13:09 Deucher, Alexander <Alexander.Deucher-urvtwAKJhsc@public.gmane.orgm>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> *From:* amd-gfx [mailto:amd-gfx-bounces-PD4FTy7X32lNgt0PjOBp9y5qC8QIuHrW@public.gmane.org] *On Behalf
> Of *Christian König
> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 14, 2017 12:37 PM
> *To:* Alexandre Demers; Freedesktop - AMD-gfx
> *Subject:* Re: Question about porting VCE1 to amdgpu
>
>
>
> - Would we need a different firmware version with a different "hdr" for
> the amdgpu driver?
>
> Yes, we should probably release the latest one instead of reusing the one
> used with radeon.
>
> Actually, we should probably stick the same one as radeon for now until we
> can verify the new firmware in general.  Easier to start with a known
> working case.
>
>
>
> OK. Then,  is it expected to have a validation failure with the current
> firmware? Is the header compatible with how the validation is done under
> VCE2 and others or should I keep how it was done under radeon?
>
> There is no header on the multi-media firmware from radeon, so you'd need
> to add one.  The header is documented in amdgpu_ucode.h,  All you'd need to
> do is prepend the header to the existing firmware image.
>
>
>
> Alex
>
>
>
>
>
>
> BTW: Does VCE work on CIK? Alex, don't we run into the same issue there as
> well?
>
> VCE works on CIK.  We ported VCE and UVD to CIK as part of the initial
> amdgpu bring up.
>
>
>
> I've been using VCE2 port as my template for VCE1. My initial intention
> was to work on UVD, but I ended up plugging in VCE in the first place. UVD
> is on my todo list right next, I was expecting to working on it after
> fixing the VCE part.
>
>
>
>
>
> Alex
>
>
>
> - Wouldn't it be better to continue loading the driver while having VCE
> disabled IF we fail when loading or validating the FW? Completely failing
> to load the driver for this reason seems overkill IMO, since nothing has
> been loaded in memory and no registry have been modified up to that point.
>
> UVD and VCE are actually needed for correct power management. When the
> blocks fail to initialize you usually sooner or later run into problems
> with power management (e.g. stuck inside a certain power level).
>
>
>
> OK, but right now it is disabled, so the situation wouldn't be worst isn't
> it?
>
>
>
>
>
> - Would it be a good idea to send a patch as a RFC so some of you could
> help me finish the job and maybe pinpoint where the last modifications need
> to be done?
>
> Well you could, but to be honest without AMD releasing new firmware that
> is most likely a futile effort.
>
>
>
> I'll send a patch then, and we'll navigate from there. This will allow me
> to work on UVD in parallel.
>
>
>
> Alexandre Demers
>
>
>
>
> Regards,
> Christian.
>
> Am 14.06.2017 um 18:22 schrieb Alexandre Demers:
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> I've been working on porting VCE1 from radeon to amdgpu in the last few
> weeks. I'm pretty much done and I've enabled the functionality to see how
> it goes. However, I ended up with an error on the firmware validation (size
> doesn't seem to fit), thus failing completely in loading the driver. I'm
> testing on a R9 280X (Tahiti).
>
>
>
> Three questions then:
>
> - Would we need a different firmware version with a different "hdr" for
> the amdgpu driver?
>
> - Wouldn't it be better to continue loading the driver while having VCE
> disabled IF we fail when loading or validating the FW? Completely failing
> to load the driver for this reason seems overkill IMO, since nothing has
> been loaded in memory and no registry have been modified up to that point.
>
> - Would it be a good idea to send a patch as a RFC so some of you could
> help me finish the job and maybe pinpoint where the last modifications need
> to be done?
>
>
>
> Thank you!
>
> Alexandre Demers
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> amd-gfx mailing list
>
> amd-gfx-PD4FTy7X32lNgt0PjOBp9y5qC8QIuHrW@public.gmane.org
>
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx
>
>
>
>

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 13768 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 154 bytes --]

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

Re: Question about porting VCE1 to amdgpu

[Alex Deucher]

On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 1:08 PM, Alexandre Demers
<alexandre.f.demers@gmail.com> wrote:
> Just a quick update: things a getting into shape slowly since my paternal
> vacancy is over, but I'm still progressing. I'm debugging things as I can. I
> managed to work around the missing header with the current firmware after
> analyzing what it contains and where it is used.

I'd suggest just tacking the header onto the existing firmware.  The
only thing we use it for on the multi-media firmware is the version
info which you can read out of the raw firmware and populate based on
the code in radeon_vce_init().

Alex

>
> I'm more interested than ever to have VCE and UVD ported to amdgpu, since we
> now have cards from the 300 series at work (one based on GCN 1, the other on
> GCN 2).
>
> By the way, the R7 360 (based on GCN 2, Bonaire Pro) fails to load the
> amdgpu driver because of an error in VCE 2 implementation.
>
> I'll keep you up to date.
>
> Alexandre
>
> On Wed, 14 Jun 2017 at 14:22 Deucher, Alexander <Alexander.Deucher@amd.com>
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Alexandre Demers [mailto:alexandre.f.demers@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2017 1:30 PM
>> To: Deucher, Alexander; Christian König; Freedesktop - AMD-gfx
>>
>>
>> Subject: Re: Question about porting VCE1 to amdgpu
>>
>> On Wed, 14 Jun 2017 at 13:09 Deucher, Alexander
>> <Alexander.Deucher@amd.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> From: amd-gfx [mailto:amd-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org] On Behalf Of
>> Christian König
>> Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2017 12:37 PM
>> To: Alexandre Demers; Freedesktop - AMD-gfx
>> Subject: Re: Question about porting VCE1 to amdgpu
>>
>>
>>
>> - Would we need a different firmware version with a different "hdr" for
>> the amdgpu driver?
>>
>> Yes, we should probably release the latest one instead of reusing the one
>> used with radeon.
>>
>> Actually, we should probably stick the same one as radeon for now until we
>> can verify the new firmware in general.  Easier to start with a known
>> working case.
>>
>>
>>
>> OK. Then,  is it expected to have a validation failure with the current
>> firmware? Is the header compatible with how the validation is done under
>> VCE2 and others or should I keep how it was done under radeon?
>>
>> There is no header on the multi-media firmware from radeon, so you'd need
>> to add one.  The header is documented in amdgpu_ucode.h,  All you'd need to
>> do is prepend the header to the existing firmware image.
>>
>>
>>
>> Alex
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> BTW: Does VCE work on CIK? Alex, don't we run into the same issue there as
>> well?
>>
>> VCE works on CIK.  We ported VCE and UVD to CIK as part of the initial
>> amdgpu bring up.
>>
>>
>>
>> I've been using VCE2 port as my template for VCE1. My initial intention
>> was to work on UVD, but I ended up plugging in VCE in the first place. UVD
>> is on my todo list right next, I was expecting to working on it after fixing
>> the VCE part.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Alex
>>
>>
>>
>> - Wouldn't it be better to continue loading the driver while having VCE
>> disabled IF we fail when loading or validating the FW? Completely failing to
>> load the driver for this reason seems overkill IMO, since nothing has been
>> loaded in memory and no registry have been modified up to that point.
>>
>> UVD and VCE are actually needed for correct power management. When the
>> blocks fail to initialize you usually sooner or later run into problems with
>> power management (e.g. stuck inside a certain power level).
>>
>>
>>
>> OK, but right now it is disabled, so the situation wouldn't be worst isn't
>> it?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> - Would it be a good idea to send a patch as a RFC so some of you could
>> help me finish the job and maybe pinpoint where the last modifications need
>> to be done?
>>
>> Well you could, but to be honest without AMD releasing new firmware that
>> is most likely a futile effort.
>>
>>
>>
>> I'll send a patch then, and we'll navigate from there. This will allow me
>> to work on UVD in parallel.
>>
>>
>>
>> Alexandre Demers
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Christian.
>>
>> Am 14.06.2017 um 18:22 schrieb Alexandre Demers:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>>
>> I've been working on porting VCE1 from radeon to amdgpu in the last few
>> weeks. I'm pretty much done and I've enabled the functionality to see how it
>> goes. However, I ended up with an error on the firmware validation (size
>> doesn't seem to fit), thus failing completely in loading the driver. I'm
>> testing on a R9 280X (Tahiti).
>>
>>
>>
>> Three questions then:
>>
>> - Would we need a different firmware version with a different "hdr" for
>> the amdgpu driver?
>>
>> - Wouldn't it be better to continue loading the driver while having VCE
>> disabled IF we fail when loading or validating the FW? Completely failing to
>> load the driver for this reason seems overkill IMO, since nothing has been
>> loaded in memory and no registry have been modified up to that point.
>>
>> - Would it be a good idea to send a patch as a RFC so some of you could
>> help me finish the job and maybe pinpoint where the last modifications need
>> to be done?
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank you!
>>
>> Alexandre Demers
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> amd-gfx mailing list
>>
>> amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
>>
>> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> amd-gfx mailing list
> amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx
>
_______________________________________________
amd-gfx mailing list
amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx