-----Original Message-----
From: Zhou1, Tao <Tao.Zhou1@xxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2022 4:37 PM
To: Chai, Thomas <YiPeng.Chai@xxxxxxx>; amd-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Zhang, Hawking <Hawking.Zhang@xxxxxxx>; Clements, John <John.Clements@xxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 2/2] drm/amdgpu: No longer insert ras blocks into ras_list if it already exists in ras_list
[AMD Official Use Only]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chai, Thomas <YiPeng.Chai@xxxxxxx>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2022 3:48 PM
> To: amd-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: Chai, Thomas <YiPeng.Chai@xxxxxxx>; Zhang, Hawking
> <Hawking.Zhang@xxxxxxx>; Zhou1, Tao <Tao.Zhou1@xxxxxxx>; Clements,
> John <John.Clements@xxxxxxx>; Chai, Thomas <YiPeng.Chai@xxxxxxx>
> Subject: [PATCH 2/2] drm/amdgpu: No longer insert ras blocks into
> ras_list if it already exists in ras_list
>
> No longer insert ras blocks into ras_list if it already exists in ras_list.
>
> Signed-off-by: yipechai <YiPeng.Chai@xxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_ras.c | 8 ++++++++
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_ras.c
> b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_ras.c
> index 62be0b4909b3..e6d3bb4b56e4 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_ras.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_ras.c
> @@ -2754,9 +2754,17 @@ int amdgpu_ras_reset_gpu(struct amdgpu_device
> *adev) int amdgpu_ras_register_ras_block(struct amdgpu_device *adev,
> struct amdgpu_ras_block_object* ras_block_obj) {
> + struct amdgpu_ras_block_object *obj, *tmp;
> if (!adev || !amdgpu_ras_asic_supported(adev) || !ras_block_obj)
> return -EINVAL;
>
> + /* If the ras object had been in ras_list, doesn't add it to
> +ras_list again */
>[Tao] How about "If the ras object is in ras_list, don't add it again"
[Thomas] OK
> + list_for_each_entry_safe(obj, tmp, &adev->ras_list, node) {
> + if (obj == ras_block_obj) {
> + return 0;
> + }
> + }
>[Tao] The patch is OK for me currently, but I think the root cause is we initialize adev->gmc.xgmi.ras in gmc_ras_late_init, the initialization should be called only in modprobe stage and we can create a general gmc_early_init for it.
[Thomas] This can create a new task to do it.
> +
> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&ras_block_obj->node);
> list_add_tail(&ras_block_obj->node, &adev->ras_list);
>
> --
> 2.25.1
