Re: [PATCH] drm/amdgpu: attempt to enable gfxoff on more raven1 boards

[Luben Tuikov <luben.tuikov@xxxxxxx>]

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@xxxxxxx>
> ---
>  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&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cluben.tuikov%40amd.com%7C683669e5a2c74bcbbc9108d799e0cda4%7C3dd8961fe4884e608e11a82d994e183d%7C0%7C0%7C637147063903364365&amp;sdata=UL9SCKI7OchzK6a27AxkjrpeLNw%2BWH5DmpWGKutCI4A%3D&amp;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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx