On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 12:27 PM Luben Tuikov <luben.tuikov@xxxxxxx> 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@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&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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx
