Re: [PATCH] drm/amd/powerplay: update cached feature enablement status V2

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



a patch does only one thing.
in this patch,it will do 2 things:
  1. fixed feature bitmap cached issue.
  2. make api of smu_feature_update_enabled_state as static function.
for reason#2:
the driver has other apis which only used in amdgpu_smu.c, but it still declaration in amdgpu_smu.h.
the intent is to make this a public API.
if you want to make it is a static function, please split it 2 patches. and indicate the reason.

Best Regards,
Kevin

From: Quan, Evan <Evan.Quan@xxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2019 1:38 PM
To: Wang, Kevin(Yang) <Kevin1.Wang@xxxxxxx>; amd-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <amd-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] drm/amd/powerplay: update cached feature enablement status V2
 

smu_feature_update_enable_state() is used only in amdgpu_smu.c.

As a common sense, these APIs should be declared as ‘static’.

 

Regards,

Evan

From: Wang, Kevin(Yang) <Kevin1.Wang@xxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2019 1:30 PM
To: Quan, Evan <Evan.Quan@xxxxxxx>; amd-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/amd/powerplay: update cached feature enablement status V2

 

comment inline


From: Quan, Evan <Evan.Quan@xxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2019 12:50 PM
To: Wang, Kevin(Yang) <Kevin1.Wang@xxxxxxx>; amd-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <amd-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] drm/amd/powerplay: update cached feature enablement status V2

 

Comment inline

 

From: Wang, Kevin(Yang) <Kevin1.Wang@xxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2019 8:00 PM
To: Quan, Evan <Evan.Quan@xxxxxxx>; amd-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/amd/powerplay: update cached feature enablement status V2

 

comment inline.


From: amd-gfx <amd-gfx-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of Evan Quan <evan.quan@xxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2019 6:18 PM
To: amd-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <amd-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Quan, Evan <Evan.Quan@xxxxxxx>
Subject: [PATCH] drm/amd/powerplay: update cached feature enablement status V2

 

Need to update in cache feature enablement status after pp_feature
settings. Another fix for the commit below:
drm/amd/powerplay: implment sysfs feature status function in smu

V2: update smu_feature_update_enable_state() and relates

Change-Id: I90e29b0d839df26825d5993212f6097c7ad4bebf 

[kevin]: this information is not neccessary for public, please remove it.

git config gerrit.createchangeid=false
Signed-off-by: Evan Quan <evan.quan@xxxxxxx>
---
 drivers/gpu/drm/amd/powerplay/amdgpu_smu.c    | 104 +++++++++---------
 .../gpu/drm/amd/powerplay/inc/amdgpu_smu.h    |   1 -
 2 files changed, 52 insertions(+), 53 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/powerplay/amdgpu_smu.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/powerplay/amdgpu_smu.c
index 4df7fb6eaf3c..3e1cd5d9c29e 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/powerplay/amdgpu_smu.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/powerplay/amdgpu_smu.c
@@ -94,6 +94,55 @@ size_t smu_sys_get_pp_feature_mask(struct smu_context *smu, char *buf)
         return size;
 }
 
+static int smu_feature_update_enable_state(struct smu_context *smu,
+                                          uint64_t feature_mask,
+                                          bool enabled)
+{
+       struct smu_feature *feature = &smu->smu_feature;
+       uint32_t feature_low = 0, feature_high = 0;
+       uint64_t feature_id;
+       int ret = 0;
+
+       if (!smu->pm_enabled)
+               return ret;
+
+       feature_low = (feature_mask >> 0 ) & 0xffffffff;
+       feature_high = (feature_mask >> 32) & 0xffffffff;
+
+       if (enabled) {
+               ret = smu_send_smc_msg_with_param(smu, SMU_MSG_EnableSmuFeaturesLow,
+                                                 feature_low);
+               if (ret)
+                       return ret;
+               ret = smu_send_smc_msg_with_param(smu, SMU_MSG_EnableSmuFeaturesHigh,
+                                                 feature_high);
+               if (ret)
+                       return ret;
+       } else {
+               ret = smu_send_smc_msg_with_param(smu, SMU_MSG_DisableSmuFeaturesLow,
+                                                 feature_low);
+               if (ret)
+                       return ret;
+               ret = smu_send_smc_msg_with_param(smu, SMU_MSG_DisableSmuFeaturesHigh,
+                                                 feature_high);
+               if (ret)
+                       return ret;
+       }
+
+       mutex_lock(&feature->mutex);
+       for (feature_id = 0; feature_id < 64; feature_id++) {
+               if (feature_mask & (1ULL << feature_id)) {
+                       if (enabled)
+                               test_and_set_bit(feature_id, feature->enabled);
+                       else
+                               test_and_clear_bit(feature_id, feature->enabled);
+               }
+       }

 

//[kevin]: the code logic is a little redundant.

could you use bellow macro to replace that?

header : linux/bitmap.h

 *  bitmap_and(dst, src1, src2, nbits)          *dst = *src1 & *src2

 *  bitmap_or(dst, src1, src2, nbits)           *dst = *src1 | *src2

 *  bitmap_xor(dst, src1, src2, nbits)          *dst = *src1 ^ *src2

 *  bitmap_andnot(dst, src1, src2, nbits)       *dst = *src1 & ~(*src2)

 

+       mutex_unlock(&feature->mutex);
+
+       return ret;
+}
+

 

[Quan, Evan] updated in v3.


 int smu_sys_set_pp_feature_mask(struct smu_context *smu, uint64_t new_mask)
 {
         int ret = 0;
@@ -591,41 +640,7 @@ int smu_feature_init_dpm(struct smu_context *smu)
 
         return ret;
 }

 

[kevin]:

in this patch, i know you only want to fix not cached feature cache issue,

but in v2 patch,

the patch adjust the order of code functions, it seems that this is a brand new function,

I don't think it is necessary,

could you just reflect the modified content in the patch, which can facilitate us to trace problems and review.

thanks.

 

[Quan, Evan] Move the API before the place it’s called. No problem here.

 

[kevin]: in this patch, you don't need to adjust function order in this file,

because the driver is already export this function in amdgpu_smu.h.

int smu_feature_update_enable_state(struct smu_context *smu, uint64_t feature_mask, bool enabled);

and in this patch, it make it is static function, but the declaration section remains in the amdgpu_smu.h file.

so i don't want to you adjust the function order and make it is static funtion in this patch.

except you have other reason for it.

 

-int smu_feature_update_enable_state(struct smu_context *smu, uint64_t feature_mask, bool enabled)
-{
-       uint32_t feature_low = 0, feature_high = 0;
-       int ret = 0;
 
-       if (!smu->pm_enabled)
-               return ret;
-
-       feature_low = (feature_mask >> 0 ) & 0xffffffff;
-       feature_high = (feature_mask >> 32) & 0xffffffff;
-
-       if (enabled) {
-               ret = smu_send_smc_msg_with_param(smu, SMU_MSG_EnableSmuFeaturesLow,
-                                                 feature_low);
-               if (ret)
-                       return ret;
-               ret = smu_send_smc_msg_with_param(smu, SMU_MSG_EnableSmuFeaturesHigh,
-                                                 feature_high);
-               if (ret)
-                       return ret;
-
-       } else {
-               ret = smu_send_smc_msg_with_param(smu, SMU_MSG_DisableSmuFeaturesLow,
-                                                 feature_low);
-               if (ret)
-                       return ret;
-               ret = smu_send_smc_msg_with_param(smu, SMU_MSG_DisableSmuFeaturesHigh,
-                                                 feature_high);
-               if (ret)
-                       return ret;
-
-       }
-
-       return ret;
-}
 
 int smu_feature_is_enabled(struct smu_context *smu, enum smu_feature_mask mask)
 {
@@ -651,8 +666,6 @@ int smu_feature_set_enabled(struct smu_context *smu, enum smu_feature_mask mask,
 {
         struct smu_feature *feature = &smu->smu_feature;
         int feature_id;
-       uint64_t feature_mask = 0;
-       int ret = 0;
 
         feature_id = smu_feature_get_index(smu, mask);
         if (feature_id < 0)
@@ -660,22 +673,9 @@ int smu_feature_set_enabled(struct smu_context *smu, enum smu_feature_mask mask,
 
         WARN_ON(feature_id > feature->feature_num);
 
-       feature_mask = 1ULL << feature_id;
-
-       mutex_lock(&feature->mutex);
-       ret = smu_feature_update_enable_state(smu, feature_mask, enable);
-       if (ret)
-               goto failed;
-
-       if (enable)
-               test_and_set_bit(feature_id, feature->enabled);
-       else
-               test_and_clear_bit(feature_id, feature->enabled);
-
-failed:
-       mutex_unlock(&feature->mutex);
-
-       return ret;
+       return smu_feature_update_enable_state(smu,
+                                              1ULL << feature_id,
+                                              enable);
 }
 
 int smu_feature_is_supported(struct smu_context *smu, enum smu_feature_mask mask)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/powerplay/inc/amdgpu_smu.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/powerplay/inc/amdgpu_smu.h
index e80c81552d29..fbf68fd42b93 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/powerplay/inc/amdgpu_smu.h
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/powerplay/inc/amdgpu_smu.h
@@ -807,7 +807,6 @@ enum amd_dpm_forced_level smu_get_performance_level(struct smu_context *smu);
 int smu_force_performance_level(struct smu_context *smu, enum amd_dpm_forced_level level);
 int smu_set_display_count(struct smu_context *smu, uint32_t count);
 bool smu_clk_dpm_is_enabled(struct smu_context *smu, enum smu_clk_type clk_type);
-int smu_feature_update_enable_state(struct smu_context *smu, uint64_t feature_mask, bool enabled);
 const char *smu_get_message_name(struct smu_context *smu, enum smu_message_type type);
 const char *smu_get_feature_name(struct smu_context *smu, enum smu_feature_mask feature);
 size_t smu_sys_get_pp_feature_mask(struct smu_context *smu, char *buf);
--
2.23.0

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

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

[Index of Archives]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux