* [PATCH] drm/amdgpu: attempt to enable gfxoff on more raven1 boards @ 2020-01-15 17:31 Alex Deucher 2020-01-16 1:51 ` Li, Dennis 2020-01-16 17:27 ` Luben Tuikov 0 siblings, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: Alex Deucher @ 2020-01-15 17:31 UTC (permalink / raw) To: amd-gfx; +Cc: Alex Deucher Switch to a blacklist so we can disable specific boards that are problematic. Signed-off-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com> --- drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/gfx_v9_0.c | 42 ++++++++++++++++++++++++--- 1 file changed, 38 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/gfx_v9_0.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/gfx_v9_0.c index e3d466bd5c4e..b48b07bcd0fb 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/gfx_v9_0.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/gfx_v9_0.c @@ -1031,6 +1031,37 @@ static void gfx_v9_0_check_fw_write_wait(struct amdgpu_device *adev) } } +struct amdgpu_gfxoff_quirk { + u16 chip_vendor; + u16 chip_device; + u16 subsys_vendor; + u16 subsys_device; + u8 revision; +}; + +static const struct amdgpu_gfxoff_quirk amdgpu_gfxoff_quirk_list[] = { + /* https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=204689 */ + { 0x1002, 0x15dd, 0x1002, 0x15dd, 0xc8 }, + { 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 }, +}; + +static bool gfx_v9_0_raven_check_disable_gfxoff(struct pci_dev *pdev) +{ + const struct amdgpu_gfxoff_quirk *p = amdgpu_gfxoff_quirk_list; + + while (p && p->chip_device != 0) { + if (pdev->vendor == p->chip_vendor && + pdev->device == p->chip_device && + pdev->subsystem_vendor == p->subsys_vendor && + pdev->subsystem_device == p->subsys_device && + pdev->revision == p->revision) { + return true; + } + ++p; + } + return false; +} + static void gfx_v9_0_check_if_need_gfxoff(struct amdgpu_device *adev) { switch (adev->asic_type) { @@ -1039,10 +1070,13 @@ static void gfx_v9_0_check_if_need_gfxoff(struct amdgpu_device *adev) case CHIP_VEGA20: break; case CHIP_RAVEN: - if (!(adev->rev_id >= 0x8 || - adev->pdev->device == 0x15d8) && - (adev->pm.fw_version < 0x41e2b || /* not raven1 fresh */ - !adev->gfx.rlc.is_rlc_v2_1)) /* without rlc save restore ucodes */ + if (!(adev->rev_id >= 0x8 || adev->pdev->device == 0x15d8) && + ((adev->gfx.rlc_fw_version != 106 && + adev->gfx.rlc_fw_version < 531) || + (adev->gfx.rlc_fw_version == 53815) || + (adev->gfx.rlc_feature_version < 1) || + !adev->gfx.rlc.is_rlc_v2_1) && + !gfx_v9_0_raven_check_disable_gfxoff(adev->pdev)) adev->pm.pp_feature &= ~PP_GFXOFF_MASK; if (adev->pm.pp_feature & PP_GFXOFF_MASK) -- 2.24.1 _______________________________________________ amd-gfx mailing list amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* RE: [PATCH] drm/amdgpu: attempt to enable gfxoff on more raven1 boards 2020-01-15 17:31 [PATCH] drm/amdgpu: attempt to enable gfxoff on more raven1 boards Alex Deucher @ 2020-01-16 1:51 ` Li, Dennis 2020-01-16 15:26 ` Alex Deucher 2020-01-16 17:27 ` Luben Tuikov 1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Li, Dennis @ 2020-01-16 1:51 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alex Deucher, amd-gfx; +Cc: Deucher, Alexander [AMD Official Use Only - Internal Distribution Only] Hi, Alex, it is better to refine the patch as a common function, not only used for raven. Best Regards Dennis Li -----Original Message----- From: amd-gfx <amd-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org> On Behalf Of Alex Deucher Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2020 1:32 AM To: amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org Cc: Deucher, Alexander <Alexander.Deucher@amd.com> Subject: [PATCH] drm/amdgpu: attempt to enable gfxoff on more raven1 boards Switch to a blacklist so we can disable specific boards that are problematic. Signed-off-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com> --- drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/gfx_v9_0.c | 42 ++++++++++++++++++++++++--- 1 file changed, 38 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/gfx_v9_0.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/gfx_v9_0.c index e3d466bd5c4e..b48b07bcd0fb 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/gfx_v9_0.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/gfx_v9_0.c @@ -1031,6 +1031,37 @@ static void gfx_v9_0_check_fw_write_wait(struct amdgpu_device *adev) } } +struct amdgpu_gfxoff_quirk { + u16 chip_vendor; + u16 chip_device; + u16 subsys_vendor; + u16 subsys_device; + u8 revision; +}; + +static const struct amdgpu_gfxoff_quirk amdgpu_gfxoff_quirk_list[] = { + /* https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fbugzilla.kernel.org%2Fshow_bug.cgi%3Fid%3D204689&data=02%7C01%7CDennis.Li%40amd.com%7C33990b7157714a2f943a08d799e0cda3%7C3dd8961fe4884e608e11a82d994e183d%7C0%7C0%7C637147063123345220&sdata=2mT3Eug%2FEDKGGbI1bqymp2tnMqLX4x%2B2BAWnLUnq5m0%3D&reserved=0 */ + { 0x1002, 0x15dd, 0x1002, 0x15dd, 0xc8 }, + { 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 }, +}; + +static bool gfx_v9_0_raven_check_disable_gfxoff(struct pci_dev *pdev) { + const struct amdgpu_gfxoff_quirk *p = amdgpu_gfxoff_quirk_list; + + while (p && p->chip_device != 0) { + if (pdev->vendor == p->chip_vendor && + pdev->device == p->chip_device && + pdev->subsystem_vendor == p->subsys_vendor && + pdev->subsystem_device == p->subsys_device && + pdev->revision == p->revision) { + return true; + } + ++p; + } + return false; +} + static void gfx_v9_0_check_if_need_gfxoff(struct amdgpu_device *adev) { switch (adev->asic_type) { @@ -1039,10 +1070,13 @@ static void gfx_v9_0_check_if_need_gfxoff(struct amdgpu_device *adev) case CHIP_VEGA20: break; case CHIP_RAVEN: - if (!(adev->rev_id >= 0x8 || - adev->pdev->device == 0x15d8) && - (adev->pm.fw_version < 0x41e2b || /* not raven1 fresh */ - !adev->gfx.rlc.is_rlc_v2_1)) /* without rlc save restore ucodes */ + if (!(adev->rev_id >= 0x8 || adev->pdev->device == 0x15d8) && + ((adev->gfx.rlc_fw_version != 106 && + adev->gfx.rlc_fw_version < 531) || + (adev->gfx.rlc_fw_version == 53815) || + (adev->gfx.rlc_feature_version < 1) || + !adev->gfx.rlc.is_rlc_v2_1) && + !gfx_v9_0_raven_check_disable_gfxoff(adev->pdev)) adev->pm.pp_feature &= ~PP_GFXOFF_MASK; if (adev->pm.pp_feature & PP_GFXOFF_MASK) -- 2.24.1 _______________________________________________ amd-gfx mailing list amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.freedesktop.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Famd-gfx&data=02%7C01%7CDennis.Li%40amd.com%7C33990b7157714a2f943a08d799e0cda3%7C3dd8961fe4884e608e11a82d994e183d%7C0%7C0%7C637147063123345220&sdata=ON7UTCOhoCaW%2Bwp0KiMCjOQHt6QohngaFxx9hgfKS7o%3D&reserved=0 _______________________________________________ amd-gfx mailing list amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] drm/amdgpu: attempt to enable gfxoff on more raven1 boards 2020-01-16 1:51 ` Li, Dennis @ 2020-01-16 15:26 ` Alex Deucher 2020-01-16 15:31 ` Christian König 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Alex Deucher @ 2020-01-16 15:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Li, Dennis; +Cc: Deucher, Alexander, amd-gfx On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 8:51 PM Li, Dennis <Dennis.Li@amd.com> wrote: > > [AMD Official Use Only - Internal Distribution Only] > > Hi, Alex, > it is better to refine the patch as a common function, not only used for raven. I originally had the name as gfx_v9_0_check_disable_gfxoff(), but I changed it to be raven specific because if we call this independent of the other conditions in the CHIP_RAVEN case, we may end up disabling gfxoff in cases where we don't want to (e.g., if a raven1 refresh uses the same DID/SSID/RIDs as a non-kicker for example, and one works and the other doesn't). I guess we can revisit if we have to add cases for other asics. If you feel strongly I can change the name. Alex > > Best Regards > Dennis Li > -----Original Message----- > From: amd-gfx <amd-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org> On Behalf Of Alex Deucher > Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2020 1:32 AM > To: amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org > Cc: Deucher, Alexander <Alexander.Deucher@amd.com> > Subject: [PATCH] drm/amdgpu: attempt to enable gfxoff on more raven1 boards > > Switch to a blacklist so we can disable specific boards that are problematic. > > Signed-off-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com> > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/gfx_v9_0.c | 42 ++++++++++++++++++++++++--- > 1 file changed, 38 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/gfx_v9_0.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/gfx_v9_0.c > index e3d466bd5c4e..b48b07bcd0fb 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/gfx_v9_0.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/gfx_v9_0.c > @@ -1031,6 +1031,37 @@ static void gfx_v9_0_check_fw_write_wait(struct amdgpu_device *adev) > } > } > > +struct amdgpu_gfxoff_quirk { > + u16 chip_vendor; > + u16 chip_device; > + u16 subsys_vendor; > + u16 subsys_device; > + u8 revision; > +}; > + > +static const struct amdgpu_gfxoff_quirk amdgpu_gfxoff_quirk_list[] = { > + /* https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fbugzilla.kernel.org%2Fshow_bug.cgi%3Fid%3D204689&data=02%7C01%7CDennis.Li%40amd.com%7C33990b7157714a2f943a08d799e0cda3%7C3dd8961fe4884e608e11a82d994e183d%7C0%7C0%7C637147063123345220&sdata=2mT3Eug%2FEDKGGbI1bqymp2tnMqLX4x%2B2BAWnLUnq5m0%3D&reserved=0 */ > + { 0x1002, 0x15dd, 0x1002, 0x15dd, 0xc8 }, > + { 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 }, > +}; > + > +static bool gfx_v9_0_raven_check_disable_gfxoff(struct pci_dev *pdev) { > + const struct amdgpu_gfxoff_quirk *p = amdgpu_gfxoff_quirk_list; > + > + while (p && p->chip_device != 0) { > + if (pdev->vendor == p->chip_vendor && > + pdev->device == p->chip_device && > + pdev->subsystem_vendor == p->subsys_vendor && > + pdev->subsystem_device == p->subsys_device && > + pdev->revision == p->revision) { > + return true; > + } > + ++p; > + } > + return false; > +} > + > static void gfx_v9_0_check_if_need_gfxoff(struct amdgpu_device *adev) { > switch (adev->asic_type) { > @@ -1039,10 +1070,13 @@ static void gfx_v9_0_check_if_need_gfxoff(struct amdgpu_device *adev) > case CHIP_VEGA20: > break; > case CHIP_RAVEN: > - if (!(adev->rev_id >= 0x8 || > - adev->pdev->device == 0x15d8) && > - (adev->pm.fw_version < 0x41e2b || /* not raven1 fresh */ > - !adev->gfx.rlc.is_rlc_v2_1)) /* without rlc save restore ucodes */ > + if (!(adev->rev_id >= 0x8 || adev->pdev->device == 0x15d8) && > + ((adev->gfx.rlc_fw_version != 106 && > + adev->gfx.rlc_fw_version < 531) || > + (adev->gfx.rlc_fw_version == 53815) || > + (adev->gfx.rlc_feature_version < 1) || > + !adev->gfx.rlc.is_rlc_v2_1) && > + !gfx_v9_0_raven_check_disable_gfxoff(adev->pdev)) > adev->pm.pp_feature &= ~PP_GFXOFF_MASK; > > if (adev->pm.pp_feature & PP_GFXOFF_MASK) > -- > 2.24.1 > > _______________________________________________ > amd-gfx mailing list > amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org > https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.freedesktop.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Famd-gfx&data=02%7C01%7CDennis.Li%40amd.com%7C33990b7157714a2f943a08d799e0cda3%7C3dd8961fe4884e608e11a82d994e183d%7C0%7C0%7C637147063123345220&sdata=ON7UTCOhoCaW%2Bwp0KiMCjOQHt6QohngaFxx9hgfKS7o%3D&reserved=0 _______________________________________________ amd-gfx mailing list amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] drm/amdgpu: attempt to enable gfxoff on more raven1 boards 2020-01-16 15:26 ` Alex Deucher @ 2020-01-16 15:31 ` Christian König 0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: Christian König @ 2020-01-16 15:31 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alex Deucher, Li, Dennis; +Cc: Deucher, Alexander, amd-gfx Am 16.01.20 um 16:26 schrieb Alex Deucher: > On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 8:51 PM Li, Dennis <Dennis.Li@amd.com> wrote: >> [AMD Official Use Only - Internal Distribution Only] >> >> Hi, Alex, >> it is better to refine the patch as a common function, not only used for raven. > I originally had the name as gfx_v9_0_check_disable_gfxoff(), but I > changed it to be raven specific because if we call this independent of > the other conditions in the CHIP_RAVEN case, we may end up disabling > gfxoff in cases where we don't want to (e.g., if a raven1 refresh uses > the same DID/SSID/RIDs as a non-kicker for example, and one works and > the other doesn't). I guess we can revisit if we have to add cases > for other asics. If you feel strongly I can change the name. Maybe we should have a general feature to match an array of DID/SSID/RIDs? Maybe having that in amdgpu_device.c or even the PCI subsystem would make a lot of sense for this. Christian. > > Alex > >> Best Regards >> Dennis Li >> -----Original Message----- >> From: amd-gfx <amd-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org> On Behalf Of Alex Deucher >> Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2020 1:32 AM >> To: amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org >> Cc: Deucher, Alexander <Alexander.Deucher@amd.com> >> Subject: [PATCH] drm/amdgpu: attempt to enable gfxoff on more raven1 boards >> >> Switch to a blacklist so we can disable specific boards that are problematic. >> >> Signed-off-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com> >> --- >> drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/gfx_v9_0.c | 42 ++++++++++++++++++++++++--- >> 1 file changed, 38 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/gfx_v9_0.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/gfx_v9_0.c >> index e3d466bd5c4e..b48b07bcd0fb 100644 >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/gfx_v9_0.c >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/gfx_v9_0.c >> @@ -1031,6 +1031,37 @@ static void gfx_v9_0_check_fw_write_wait(struct amdgpu_device *adev) >> } >> } >> >> +struct amdgpu_gfxoff_quirk { >> + u16 chip_vendor; >> + u16 chip_device; >> + u16 subsys_vendor; >> + u16 subsys_device; >> + u8 revision; >> +}; >> + >> +static const struct amdgpu_gfxoff_quirk amdgpu_gfxoff_quirk_list[] = { >> + /* https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fbugzilla.kernel.org%2Fshow_bug.cgi%3Fid%3D204689&data=02%7C01%7CDennis.Li%40amd.com%7C33990b7157714a2f943a08d799e0cda3%7C3dd8961fe4884e608e11a82d994e183d%7C0%7C0%7C637147063123345220&sdata=2mT3Eug%2FEDKGGbI1bqymp2tnMqLX4x%2B2BAWnLUnq5m0%3D&reserved=0 */ >> + { 0x1002, 0x15dd, 0x1002, 0x15dd, 0xc8 }, >> + { 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 }, >> +}; >> + >> +static bool gfx_v9_0_raven_check_disable_gfxoff(struct pci_dev *pdev) { >> + const struct amdgpu_gfxoff_quirk *p = amdgpu_gfxoff_quirk_list; >> + >> + while (p && p->chip_device != 0) { >> + if (pdev->vendor == p->chip_vendor && >> + pdev->device == p->chip_device && >> + pdev->subsystem_vendor == p->subsys_vendor && >> + pdev->subsystem_device == p->subsys_device && >> + pdev->revision == p->revision) { >> + return true; >> + } >> + ++p; >> + } >> + return false; >> +} >> + >> static void gfx_v9_0_check_if_need_gfxoff(struct amdgpu_device *adev) { >> switch (adev->asic_type) { >> @@ -1039,10 +1070,13 @@ static void gfx_v9_0_check_if_need_gfxoff(struct amdgpu_device *adev) >> case CHIP_VEGA20: >> break; >> case CHIP_RAVEN: >> - if (!(adev->rev_id >= 0x8 || >> - adev->pdev->device == 0x15d8) && >> - (adev->pm.fw_version < 0x41e2b || /* not raven1 fresh */ >> - !adev->gfx.rlc.is_rlc_v2_1)) /* without rlc save restore ucodes */ >> + if (!(adev->rev_id >= 0x8 || adev->pdev->device == 0x15d8) && >> + ((adev->gfx.rlc_fw_version != 106 && >> + adev->gfx.rlc_fw_version < 531) || >> + (adev->gfx.rlc_fw_version == 53815) || >> + (adev->gfx.rlc_feature_version < 1) || >> + !adev->gfx.rlc.is_rlc_v2_1) && >> + !gfx_v9_0_raven_check_disable_gfxoff(adev->pdev)) >> adev->pm.pp_feature &= ~PP_GFXOFF_MASK; >> >> if (adev->pm.pp_feature & PP_GFXOFF_MASK) >> -- >> 2.24.1 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> amd-gfx mailing list >> amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org >> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.freedesktop.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Famd-gfx&data=02%7C01%7CDennis.Li%40amd.com%7C33990b7157714a2f943a08d799e0cda3%7C3dd8961fe4884e608e11a82d994e183d%7C0%7C0%7C637147063123345220&sdata=ON7UTCOhoCaW%2Bwp0KiMCjOQHt6QohngaFxx9hgfKS7o%3D&reserved=0 > _______________________________________________ > 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] drm/amdgpu: attempt to enable gfxoff on more raven1 boards 2020-01-15 17:31 [PATCH] drm/amdgpu: attempt to enable gfxoff on more raven1 boards Alex Deucher 2020-01-16 1:51 ` Li, Dennis @ 2020-01-16 17:27 ` Luben Tuikov 2020-01-16 18:07 ` Alex Deucher 1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Luben Tuikov @ 2020-01-16 17:27 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alex Deucher, amd-gfx; +Cc: Alex Deucher On 2020-01-15 12:31, Alex Deucher wrote: > Switch to a blacklist so we can disable specific boards > that are problematic. > > Signed-off-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com> > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/gfx_v9_0.c | 42 ++++++++++++++++++++++++--- > 1 file changed, 38 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/gfx_v9_0.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/gfx_v9_0.c > index e3d466bd5c4e..b48b07bcd0fb 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/gfx_v9_0.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/gfx_v9_0.c > @@ -1031,6 +1031,37 @@ static void gfx_v9_0_check_fw_write_wait(struct amdgpu_device *adev) > } > } > > +struct amdgpu_gfxoff_quirk { > + u16 chip_vendor; > + u16 chip_device; > + u16 subsys_vendor; > + u16 subsys_device; > + u8 revision; > +}; > + > +static const struct amdgpu_gfxoff_quirk amdgpu_gfxoff_quirk_list[] = { > + /* https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fbugzilla.kernel.org%2Fshow_bug.cgi%3Fid%3D204689&data=02%7C01%7Cluben.tuikov%40amd.com%7C683669e5a2c74bcbbc9108d799e0cda4%7C3dd8961fe4884e608e11a82d994e183d%7C0%7C0%7C637147063903364365&sdata=UL9SCKI7OchzK6a27AxkjrpeLNw%2BWH5DmpWGKutCI4A%3D&reserved=0 */ > + { 0x1002, 0x15dd, 0x1002, 0x15dd, 0xc8 }, > + { 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 }, > +}; > + > +static bool gfx_v9_0_raven_check_disable_gfxoff(struct pci_dev *pdev) > +{ > + const struct amdgpu_gfxoff_quirk *p = amdgpu_gfxoff_quirk_list; > + > + while (p && p->chip_device != 0) { Maybe a "for" loop would make it compact? for ( ; p && p->chip_device != 0; p++) { if (pdev->vendor == p->chip_vendor && pdev->device == p->chip_device && pdev->subsystem_vendor == p->subsys_vendor && pdev->subsystem_device == p->subsys_device && pdev->revision == p->revision) { return true; } } I wonder if the structure "amdgpu_gfxoff_quirk" which stores device ID information can be named something more generic, (struct device_id?) and also used in "pdev"? (Reuse the struct.) Then we'd only compare structs: for ( ; p && p->chip_device != 0; p++) { if (pdev->dev_id == *p) return true; } Regards, Luben > + if (pdev->vendor == p->chip_vendor && > + pdev->device == p->chip_device && > + pdev->subsystem_vendor == p->subsys_vendor && > + pdev->subsystem_device == p->subsys_device && > + pdev->revision == p->revision) { > + return true; > + } > + ++p; > + } > + return false; > +} > + > static void gfx_v9_0_check_if_need_gfxoff(struct amdgpu_device *adev) > { > switch (adev->asic_type) { > @@ -1039,10 +1070,13 @@ static void gfx_v9_0_check_if_need_gfxoff(struct amdgpu_device *adev) > case CHIP_VEGA20: > break; > case CHIP_RAVEN: > - if (!(adev->rev_id >= 0x8 || > - adev->pdev->device == 0x15d8) && > - (adev->pm.fw_version < 0x41e2b || /* not raven1 fresh */ > - !adev->gfx.rlc.is_rlc_v2_1)) /* without rlc save restore ucodes */ > + if (!(adev->rev_id >= 0x8 || adev->pdev->device == 0x15d8) && > + ((adev->gfx.rlc_fw_version != 106 && > + adev->gfx.rlc_fw_version < 531) || > + (adev->gfx.rlc_fw_version == 53815) || > + (adev->gfx.rlc_feature_version < 1) || > + !adev->gfx.rlc.is_rlc_v2_1) && > + !gfx_v9_0_raven_check_disable_gfxoff(adev->pdev)) > adev->pm.pp_feature &= ~PP_GFXOFF_MASK; > > if (adev->pm.pp_feature & PP_GFXOFF_MASK) > _______________________________________________ amd-gfx mailing list amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] drm/amdgpu: attempt to enable gfxoff on more raven1 boards 2020-01-16 17:27 ` Luben Tuikov @ 2020-01-16 18:07 ` Alex Deucher 0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: Alex Deucher @ 2020-01-16 18:07 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Luben Tuikov; +Cc: Alex Deucher, amd-gfx list On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 12:27 PM Luben Tuikov <luben.tuikov@amd.com> wrote: > > On 2020-01-15 12:31, Alex Deucher wrote: > > Switch to a blacklist so we can disable specific boards > > that are problematic. > > > > Signed-off-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com> > > --- > > drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/gfx_v9_0.c | 42 ++++++++++++++++++++++++--- > > 1 file changed, 38 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/gfx_v9_0.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/gfx_v9_0.c > > index e3d466bd5c4e..b48b07bcd0fb 100644 > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/gfx_v9_0.c > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/gfx_v9_0.c > > @@ -1031,6 +1031,37 @@ static void gfx_v9_0_check_fw_write_wait(struct amdgpu_device *adev) > > } > > } > > > > +struct amdgpu_gfxoff_quirk { > > + u16 chip_vendor; > > + u16 chip_device; > > + u16 subsys_vendor; > > + u16 subsys_device; > > + u8 revision; > > +}; > > + > > +static const struct amdgpu_gfxoff_quirk amdgpu_gfxoff_quirk_list[] = { > > + /* https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fbugzilla.kernel.org%2Fshow_bug.cgi%3Fid%3D204689&data=02%7C01%7Cluben.tuikov%40amd.com%7C683669e5a2c74bcbbc9108d799e0cda4%7C3dd8961fe4884e608e11a82d994e183d%7C0%7C0%7C637147063903364365&sdata=UL9SCKI7OchzK6a27AxkjrpeLNw%2BWH5DmpWGKutCI4A%3D&reserved=0 */ > > + { 0x1002, 0x15dd, 0x1002, 0x15dd, 0xc8 }, > > + { 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 }, > > +}; > > + > > +static bool gfx_v9_0_raven_check_disable_gfxoff(struct pci_dev *pdev) > > +{ > > + const struct amdgpu_gfxoff_quirk *p = amdgpu_gfxoff_quirk_list; > > + > > + while (p && p->chip_device != 0) { > > Maybe a "for" loop would make it compact? Seems like the same difference either way. > > for ( ; p && p->chip_device != 0; p++) { > if (pdev->vendor == p->chip_vendor && > pdev->device == p->chip_device && > pdev->subsystem_vendor == p->subsys_vendor && > pdev->subsystem_device == p->subsys_device && > pdev->revision == p->revision) { > return true; > } > } > > I wonder if the structure "amdgpu_gfxoff_quirk" which stores > device ID information can be named something more generic, (struct device_id?) > and also used in "pdev"? (Reuse the struct.) > > Then we'd only compare structs: > > for ( ; p && p->chip_device != 0; p++) { > if (pdev->dev_id == *p) > return true; > } pdev structure is huge. All we need are the ids. Alex > > Regards, > Luben > > > + if (pdev->vendor == p->chip_vendor && > > + pdev->device == p->chip_device && > > + pdev->subsystem_vendor == p->subsys_vendor && > > + pdev->subsystem_device == p->subsys_device && > > + pdev->revision == p->revision) { > > + return true; > > + } > > + ++p; > > + } > > + return false; > > +} > > + > > static void gfx_v9_0_check_if_need_gfxoff(struct amdgpu_device *adev) > > { > > switch (adev->asic_type) { > > @@ -1039,10 +1070,13 @@ static void gfx_v9_0_check_if_need_gfxoff(struct amdgpu_device *adev) > > case CHIP_VEGA20: > > break; > > case CHIP_RAVEN: > > - if (!(adev->rev_id >= 0x8 || > > - adev->pdev->device == 0x15d8) && > > - (adev->pm.fw_version < 0x41e2b || /* not raven1 fresh */ > > - !adev->gfx.rlc.is_rlc_v2_1)) /* without rlc save restore ucodes */ > > + if (!(adev->rev_id >= 0x8 || adev->pdev->device == 0x15d8) && > > + ((adev->gfx.rlc_fw_version != 106 && > > + adev->gfx.rlc_fw_version < 531) || > > + (adev->gfx.rlc_fw_version == 53815) || > > + (adev->gfx.rlc_feature_version < 1) || > > + !adev->gfx.rlc.is_rlc_v2_1) && > > + !gfx_v9_0_raven_check_disable_gfxoff(adev->pdev)) > > adev->pm.pp_feature &= ~PP_GFXOFF_MASK; > > > > if (adev->pm.pp_feature & PP_GFXOFF_MASK) > > > _______________________________________________ amd-gfx mailing list amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2020-01-16 18:08 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2020-01-15 17:31 [PATCH] drm/amdgpu: attempt to enable gfxoff on more raven1 boards Alex Deucher 2020-01-16 1:51 ` Li, Dennis 2020-01-16 15:26 ` Alex Deucher 2020-01-16 15:31 ` Christian König 2020-01-16 17:27 ` Luben Tuikov 2020-01-16 18:07 ` Alex Deucher
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.