Hi all,
On 13 May 2016 at 17:48, Alex Deucher <alexdeucher@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> From: Sonny Jiang <sonny.jiang@xxxxxxx>
>
> Signed-off-by: Sonny Jiang <sonny.jiang@xxxxxxx>
> Reviewed-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@xxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@xxxxxxx>
> ---
> tests/amdgpu/cs_tests.c | 48 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
> 1 file changed, 42 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tests/amdgpu/cs_tests.c b/tests/amdgpu/cs_tests.c
> index c6930c0..a01ee48 100644
> --- a/tests/amdgpu/cs_tests.c
> +++ b/tests/amdgpu/cs_tests.c
> @@ -43,6 +43,8 @@ static amdgpu_device_handle device_handle;
> static uint32_t major_version;
> static uint32_t minor_version;
> static uint32_t family_id;
> +static uint32_t chip_rev;
> +static uint32_t chip_id;
>
> static amdgpu_context_handle context_handle;
> static amdgpu_bo_handle ib_handle;
> @@ -78,6 +80,9 @@ int suite_cs_tests_init(void)
> return CUE_SINIT_FAILED;
>
> family_id = device_handle->info.family_id;
> + /* VI asic POLARIS10/11 have specific external_rev_id */
> + chip_rev = device_handle->info.chip_rev;
> + chip_id = device_handle->info.chip_external_rev;
>
> r = amdgpu_cs_ctx_create(device_handle, &context_handle);
> if (r)
> @@ -200,8 +205,17 @@ static void amdgpu_cs_uvd_create(void)
> CU_ASSERT_EQUAL(r, 0);
>
> memcpy(msg, uvd_create_msg, sizeof(uvd_create_msg));
> - if (family_id >= AMDGPU_FAMILY_VI)
> + if (family_id >= AMDGPU_FAMILY_VI) {
> ((uint8_t*)msg)[0x10] = 7;
> + /* chip polaris 10/11 */
> + if (chip_id == chip_rev+0x50 || chip_id == chip_rev+0x5A) {
> + /* dpb size */
> + ((uint8_t*)msg)[0x28] = 0x00;
> + ((uint8_t*)msg)[0x29] = 0x94;
> + ((uint8_t*)msg)[0x2A] = 0x6B;
> + ((uint8_t*)msg)[0x2B] = 0x00;
I realise that many of the UVD stuff is 'top secret', although one
should really try and give symbolic names for magic numbers. With them
it's be easier and less error prone when/if the above value changes.
> + }
> + }
>
> r = amdgpu_bo_cpu_unmap(buf_handle);
> CU_ASSERT_EQUAL(r, 0);
> @@ -230,8 +244,8 @@ static void amdgpu_cs_uvd_create(void)
>
> static void amdgpu_cs_uvd_decode(void)
> {
> - const unsigned dpb_size = 15923584, dt_size = 737280;
> - uint64_t msg_addr, fb_addr, bs_addr, dpb_addr, dt_addr, it_addr;
> + const unsigned dpb_size = 15923584, ctx_size = 5287680, dt_size = 737280;
> + uint64_t msg_addr, fb_addr, bs_addr, dpb_addr, ctx_addr, dt_addr, it_addr;
> struct amdgpu_bo_alloc_request req = {0};
> amdgpu_bo_handle buf_handle;
> amdgpu_va_handle va_handle;
> @@ -269,8 +283,21 @@ static void amdgpu_cs_uvd_decode(void)
> memcpy(ptr, uvd_decode_msg, sizeof(uvd_create_msg));
> if (family_id >= AMDGPU_FAMILY_VI) {
> ptr[0x10] = 7;
> - ptr[0x98] = 0xb0;
> - ptr[0x99] = 0x1;
> + ptr[0x98] = 0x00;
> + ptr[0x99] = 0x02;
> + /* chip polaris10/11 */
> + if (chip_id == chip_rev+0x50 || chip_id == chip_rev+0x5A) {
> + /*dpb size */
> + ptr[0x24] = 0x00;
> + ptr[0x25] = 0x94;
> + ptr[0x26] = 0x6B;
> + ptr[0x27] = 0x00;
Based on the const dpb_size a few lines above... this value is
incorrect. So either the comment is off, or one/both of the values ?
> + /*ctx size */
> + ptr[0x2C] = 0x00;
> + ptr[0x2D] = 0xAF;
> + ptr[0x2E] = 0x50;
> + ptr[0x2F] = 0x00;
> + }
While this one does match ctx_size above, one should really set a
macro for these magic values and use them throughout. Also considering
that there's three almost identical places where this happens perhaps
it's better to have a common helper ?
Regards,
Emil
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
