[Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915/adl_s: Fix dma_mask_size to 39 bit

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915/adl_s: Fix dma_mask_size to 39 bit

[Tejas Upadhyay]

46 bit addressing enables you to use 4 bits  to support some
MKTME features, and 3 more bits for Optane support that uses
a subset of MTKME for persistent memory.

But display sticking to 39 bit addressing, thus setting dma_mask_size
to 39 fixes below tests :
igt@i915_selftest@live@mman
kms_big_fb --r linear-32bpp-rotate-0

Signed-off-by: Tejas Upadhyay <tejaskumarx.surendrakumar.upadhyay@intel.com>
---
 drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_pci.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_pci.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_pci.c
index a7bfdd827bc8..0fea4c0c6d48 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_pci.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_pci.c
@@ -934,7 +934,7 @@ static const struct intel_device_info adl_s_info = {
 	.display.has_psr_hw_tracking = 0,
 	.platform_engine_mask =
 		BIT(RCS0) | BIT(BCS0) | BIT(VECS0) | BIT(VCS0) | BIT(VCS2),
-	.dma_mask_size = 46,
+	.dma_mask_size = 39,
 };
 
 #define XE_LPD_CURSOR_OFFSETS \
-- 
2.31.1

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

[Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.BAT: failure for drm/i915/adl_s: Fix dma_mask_size to 39 bit

[Patchwork]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 7918 bytes --]

== Series Details ==

Series: drm/i915/adl_s: Fix dma_mask_size to 39 bit
URL   : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/92262/
State : failure

== Summary ==

CI Bug Log - changes from CI_DRM_10308 -> Patchwork_20541
====================================================

Summary
-------

  **FAILURE**

  Serious unknown changes coming with Patchwork_20541 absolutely need to be
  verified manually.
  
  If you think the reported changes have nothing to do with the changes
  introduced in Patchwork_20541, please notify your bug team to allow them
  to document this new failure mode, which will reduce false positives in CI.

  External URL: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_20541/index.html

Possible new issues
-------------------

  Here are the unknown changes that may have been introduced in Patchwork_20541:

### IGT changes ###

#### Possible regressions ####

  * igt@runner@aborted:
    - fi-snb-2520m:       NOTRUN -> [FAIL][1]
   [1]: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_20541/fi-snb-2520m/igt@runner@aborted.html

  
Known issues
------------

  Here are the changes found in Patchwork_20541 that come from known issues:

### IGT changes ###

#### Issues hit ####

  * igt@core_hotunplug@unbind-rebind:
    - fi-bdw-5557u:       NOTRUN -> [WARN][2] ([i915#3718])
   [2]: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_20541/fi-bdw-5557u/igt@core_hotunplug@unbind-rebind.html

  * igt@gem_huc_copy@huc-copy:
    - fi-kbl-x1275:       NOTRUN -> [SKIP][3] ([fdo#109271] / [i915#2190])
   [3]: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_20541/fi-kbl-x1275/igt@gem_huc_copy@huc-copy.html
    - fi-cfl-8109u:       NOTRUN -> [SKIP][4] ([fdo#109271] / [i915#2190])
   [4]: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_20541/fi-cfl-8109u/igt@gem_huc_copy@huc-copy.html

  * igt@kms_chamelium@hdmi-crc-fast:
    - fi-kbl-x1275:       NOTRUN -> [SKIP][5] ([fdo#109271] / [fdo#111827]) +8 similar issues
   [5]: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_20541/fi-kbl-x1275/igt@kms_chamelium@hdmi-crc-fast.html

  * igt@kms_chamelium@hdmi-hpd-fast:
    - fi-snb-2520m:       NOTRUN -> [SKIP][6] ([fdo#109271] / [fdo#111827]) +8 similar issues
   [6]: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_20541/fi-snb-2520m/igt@kms_chamelium@hdmi-hpd-fast.html
    - fi-cfl-8109u:       NOTRUN -> [SKIP][7] ([fdo#109271] / [fdo#111827]) +8 similar issues
   [7]: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_20541/fi-cfl-8109u/igt@kms_chamelium@hdmi-hpd-fast.html

  * igt@kms_pipe_crc_basic@compare-crc-sanitycheck-pipe-c:
    - fi-snb-2520m:       NOTRUN -> [SKIP][8] ([fdo#109271]) +18 similar issues
   [8]: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_20541/fi-snb-2520m/igt@kms_pipe_crc_basic@compare-crc-sanitycheck-pipe-c.html

  * igt@kms_pipe_crc_basic@compare-crc-sanitycheck-pipe-d:
    - fi-kbl-x1275:       NOTRUN -> [SKIP][9] ([fdo#109271] / [i915#533])
   [9]: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_20541/fi-kbl-x1275/igt@kms_pipe_crc_basic@compare-crc-sanitycheck-pipe-d.html
    - fi-cfl-8109u:       NOTRUN -> [SKIP][10] ([fdo#109271] / [i915#533])
   [10]: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_20541/fi-cfl-8109u/igt@kms_pipe_crc_basic@compare-crc-sanitycheck-pipe-d.html

  * igt@kms_psr@cursor_plane_move:
    - fi-bdw-5557u:       NOTRUN -> [SKIP][11] ([fdo#109271]) +5 similar issues
   [11]: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_20541/fi-bdw-5557u/igt@kms_psr@cursor_plane_move.html

  * igt@kms_psr@primary_mmap_gtt:
    - fi-cfl-8109u:       NOTRUN -> [SKIP][12] ([fdo#109271]) +6 similar issues
   [12]: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_20541/fi-cfl-8109u/igt@kms_psr@primary_mmap_gtt.html

  * igt@kms_psr@primary_page_flip:
    - fi-kbl-x1275:       NOTRUN -> [SKIP][13] ([fdo#109271]) +8 similar issues
   [13]: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_20541/fi-kbl-x1275/igt@kms_psr@primary_page_flip.html

  * igt@runner@aborted:
    - fi-kbl-x1275:       NOTRUN -> [FAIL][14] ([i915#2722] / [i915#3363])
   [14]: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_20541/fi-kbl-x1275/igt@runner@aborted.html
    - fi-cfl-8109u:       NOTRUN -> [FAIL][15] ([i915#2722] / [i915#3363])
   [15]: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_20541/fi-cfl-8109u/igt@runner@aborted.html

  * igt@vgem_basic@unload:
    - fi-cfl-8109u:       NOTRUN -> [INCOMPLETE][16] ([i915#3744])
   [16]: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_20541/fi-cfl-8109u/igt@vgem_basic@unload.html
    - fi-bdw-5557u:       NOTRUN -> [INCOMPLETE][17] ([i915#3744])
   [17]: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_20541/fi-bdw-5557u/igt@vgem_basic@unload.html
    - fi-kbl-x1275:       NOTRUN -> [INCOMPLETE][18] ([i915#3744])
   [18]: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_20541/fi-kbl-x1275/igt@vgem_basic@unload.html
    - fi-snb-2520m:       NOTRUN -> [INCOMPLETE][19] ([i915#3744])
   [19]: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_20541/fi-snb-2520m/igt@vgem_basic@unload.html

  
#### Possible fixes ####

  * igt@gem_exec_suspend@basic-s0:
    - fi-cfl-8109u:       [INCOMPLETE][20] ([i915#155]) -> [PASS][21]
   [20]: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_10308/fi-cfl-8109u/igt@gem_exec_suspend@basic-s0.html
   [21]: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_20541/fi-cfl-8109u/igt@gem_exec_suspend@basic-s0.html

  
#### Warnings ####

  * igt@runner@aborted:
    - fi-bdw-5557u:       [FAIL][22] ([i915#1602] / [i915#2029]) -> [FAIL][23] ([i915#2722])
   [22]: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_10308/fi-bdw-5557u/igt@runner@aborted.html
   [23]: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_20541/fi-bdw-5557u/igt@runner@aborted.html

  * igt@vgem_basic@unload:
    - fi-pnv-d510:        [INCOMPLETE][24] ([i915#299]) -> [INCOMPLETE][25] ([i915#299] / [i915#3744])
   [24]: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_10308/fi-pnv-d510/igt@vgem_basic@unload.html
   [25]: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_20541/fi-pnv-d510/igt@vgem_basic@unload.html

  
  {name}: This element is suppressed. This means it is ignored when computing
          the status of the difference (SUCCESS, WARNING, or FAILURE).

  [fdo#109271]: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=109271
  [fdo#111827]: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=111827
  [i915#155]: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/intel/issues/155
  [i915#1602]: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/intel/issues/1602
  [i915#2029]: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/intel/issues/2029
  [i915#2190]: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/intel/issues/2190
  [i915#2722]: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/intel/issues/2722
  [i915#299]: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/intel/issues/299
  [i915#3363]: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/intel/issues/3363
  [i915#3717]: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/intel/issues/3717
  [i915#3718]: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/intel/issues/3718
  [i915#3744]: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/intel/issues/3744
  [i915#533]: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/intel/issues/533


Participating hosts (38 -> 37)
------------------------------

  Additional (2): fi-kbl-x1275 fi-snb-2520m 
  Missing    (3): fi-icl-y fi-bsw-cyan fi-bdw-samus 


Build changes
-------------

  * Linux: CI_DRM_10308 -> Patchwork_20541

  CI-20190529: 20190529
  CI_DRM_10308: 9d1b5a9bdfbfb97b6e6b7ee3d863ee373ee9fd9e @ git://anongit.freedesktop.org/gfx-ci/linux
  IGT_6129: 687589e76f787d26ee2b539e551a9be06bd41ce3 @ https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/igt-gpu-tools.git
  Patchwork_20541: 55117d4dae7d10c7c3bde52cdd70513472326996 @ git://anongit.freedesktop.org/gfx-ci/linux


== Linux commits ==

55117d4dae7d drm/i915/adl_s: Fix dma_mask_size to 39 bit

== Logs ==

For more details see: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_20541/index.html

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 10424 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 160 bytes --]

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

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915/adl_s: Fix dma_mask_size to 39 bit

[Matthew Auld]

On Wed, 7 Jul 2021 at 09:31, Tejas Upadhyay
<tejaskumarx.surendrakumar.upadhyay@intel.com> wrote:
>
> 46 bit addressing enables you to use 4 bits  to support some
> MKTME features, and 3 more bits for Optane support that uses
> a subset of MTKME for persistent memory.
>
> But display sticking to 39 bit addressing, thus setting dma_mask_size

What is meant by "display" here? Is this limited to the display part
of the HW? Or just in general any HW access via GGTT or ppGTT?

Also do you know if this is documented somewhere in the Bspec? If so,
adding Bspec: link would be good.

> to 39 fixes below tests :
> igt@i915_selftest@live@mman
> kms_big_fb --r linear-32bpp-rotate-0

This looks promising. From chatting with Chris it looks like this is
https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/intel/-/issues/3142 ?

If so, it might be good to add a References: tag and add the following
example to the commit message:

DMAR: DRHD: handling fault status reg 2
DMAR: [DMA Write] Request device [00:02.0] PASID ffffffff fault addr
7effff9000 [fault reason 05] PTE Write access is not set

Also maybe highlight that the address 0x7effff9000 is suspiciously
exactly 39 bits, so it seems likely that the HW just ends up masking
off those extra bits or something when doing the access, hence why we
might see strange DMAR errors?

Nice find,
Acked-by: Matthew Auld <matthew.auld@intel.com>

>
> Signed-off-by: Tejas Upadhyay <tejaskumarx.surendrakumar.upadhyay@intel.com>
> ---
>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_pci.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_pci.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_pci.c
> index a7bfdd827bc8..0fea4c0c6d48 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_pci.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_pci.c
> @@ -934,7 +934,7 @@ static const struct intel_device_info adl_s_info = {
>         .display.has_psr_hw_tracking = 0,
>         .platform_engine_mask =
>                 BIT(RCS0) | BIT(BCS0) | BIT(VECS0) | BIT(VCS0) | BIT(VCS2),
> -       .dma_mask_size = 46,
> +       .dma_mask_size = 39,
>  };
>
>  #define XE_LPD_CURSOR_OFFSETS \
> --
> 2.31.1
>
> _______________________________________________
> Intel-gfx mailing list
> Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915/adl_s: Fix dma_mask_size to 39 bit

[Surendrakumar Upadhyay, TejaskumarX]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matthew Auld <matthew.william.auld@gmail.com>
> Sent: 07 July 2021 15:45
> To: Surendrakumar Upadhyay, TejaskumarX
> <tejaskumarx.surendrakumar.upadhyay@intel.com>
> Cc: Intel Graphics Development <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>
> Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915/adl_s: Fix dma_mask_size to 39 bit
> 
> On Wed, 7 Jul 2021 at 09:31, Tejas Upadhyay
> <tejaskumarx.surendrakumar.upadhyay@intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > 46 bit addressing enables you to use 4 bits  to support some MKTME
> > features, and 3 more bits for Optane support that uses a subset of
> > MTKME for persistent memory.
> >
> > But display sticking to 39 bit addressing, thus setting dma_mask_size
> 
> What is meant by "display" here? Is this limited to the display part of the
> HW? Or just in general any HW access via GGTT or ppGTT?
> 

I am really not sure of in general, but all tests which were failing with intel_iommu=on and passing with off, are happy with 39 bit addressing. 

> Also do you know if this is documented somewhere in the Bspec? If so,
> adding Bspec: link would be good.

Bspec link does not show this, but there is HSD which gives information. Unfortunately not able to share HSD link in this forum. I have copied info from HSD only.
I will also try to add additional details in commit message.  

> 
> > to 39 fixes below tests :
> > igt@i915_selftest@live@mman
> > kms_big_fb --r linear-32bpp-rotate-0
> 
> This looks promising. From chatting with Chris it looks like this is
> https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/intel/-/issues/3142 ?
> 
> If so, it might be good to add a References: tag and add the following
> example to the commit message:
> 
> DMAR: DRHD: handling fault status reg 2
> DMAR: [DMA Write] Request device [00:02.0] PASID ffffffff fault addr
> 7effff9000 [fault reason 05] PTE Write access is not set
> 
> Also maybe highlight that the address 0x7effff9000 is suspiciously exactly 39
> bits, so it seems likely that the HW just ends up masking off those extra bits
> or something when doing the access, hence why we might see strange DMAR
> errors?
> 

Sure I will add this.

Thanks,
Tejas
> Nice find,
> Acked-by: Matthew Auld <matthew.auld@intel.com>
> 
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Tejas Upadhyay
> > <tejaskumarx.surendrakumar.upadhyay@intel.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_pci.c | 2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_pci.c
> > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_pci.c index a7bfdd827bc8..0fea4c0c6d48
> > 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_pci.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_pci.c
> > @@ -934,7 +934,7 @@ static const struct intel_device_info adl_s_info = {
> >         .display.has_psr_hw_tracking = 0,
> >         .platform_engine_mask =
> >                 BIT(RCS0) | BIT(BCS0) | BIT(VECS0) | BIT(VCS0) | BIT(VCS2),
> > -       .dma_mask_size = 46,
> > +       .dma_mask_size = 39,
> >  };
> >
> >  #define XE_LPD_CURSOR_OFFSETS \
> > --
> > 2.31.1
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Intel-gfx mailing list
> > Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
> > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx