Comment # 89
on bug 110674
from Tom B
> It should return -EINVAL instead. Maybe then it would reset and try again instead of just ignoring it and continuing with initialization anyway, leading to instability.
If you look at vega20_send_msg_to_smc_with_parameter:
static int vega20_send_msg_to_smc_with_parameter(struct pp_hwmgr *hwmgr,
uint16_t msg, uint32_t parameter)
{
struct amdgpu_device *adev = hwmgr->adev;
int ret = 0;
vega20_wait_for_response(hwmgr);
WREG32_SOC15(MP1, 0, mmMP1_SMN_C2PMSG_90, 0);
WREG32_SOC15(MP1, 0, mmMP1_SMN_C2PMSG_82, parameter);
vega20_send_msg_to_smc_without_waiting(hwmgr, msg);
ret = vega20_wait_for_response(hwmgr);
if (ret != PPSMC_Result_OK)
pr_err("Failed to send message 0x%x, response 0x%x\n", msg,
ret);
return (ret == PPSMC_Result_OK) ? 0 : -EIO;
}
It returns 0 on success and -EIO on failure, which is then in turn returned
from vega20_set_fclk_to_highest_dpm_leve. Where did you see the check/retry on
EINVAL? Perhaps -EIO should be -EINVAL?
You are receiving this mail because:
- You are the assignee for the bug.
_______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
