On Mon, Jan 17, 2022 at 6:38 AM Akhil P Oommen <quic_akhilpo@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 1/13/2022 12:43 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > > On Thu, 13 Jan 2022 at 00:19, Rob Clark <robdclark@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 1:31 PM Akhil P Oommen <quic_akhilpo@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> Expose speedbin through MSM_PARAM_CHIP_ID parameter to help userspace > >>> identify the sku. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Akhil P Oommen <quic_akhilpo@xxxxxxxxxxx> > >>> --- > >>> > >>> drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/adreno_gpu.c | 9 +++++---- > >>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > >>> > >>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/adreno_gpu.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/adreno_gpu.c > >>> index f33cfa4..e970e6a 100644 > >>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/adreno_gpu.c > >>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/adreno_gpu.c > >>> @@ -242,10 +242,11 @@ int adreno_get_param(struct msm_gpu *gpu, uint32_t param, uint64_t *value) > >>> *value = !adreno_is_a650_family(adreno_gpu) ? 0x100000 : 0; > >>> return 0; > >>> case MSM_PARAM_CHIP_ID: > >>> - *value = adreno_gpu->rev.patchid | > >>> - (adreno_gpu->rev.minor << 8) | > >>> - (adreno_gpu->rev.major << 16) | > >>> - (adreno_gpu->rev.core << 24); > >>> + *value = (uint64_t) adreno_gpu->rev.patchid | > >>> + (uint64_t) (adreno_gpu->rev.minor << 8) | > >>> + (uint64_t) (adreno_gpu->rev.major << 16) | > >>> + (uint64_t) (adreno_gpu->rev.core << 24) | > >>> + (((uint64_t) adreno_gpu->rev.sku) << 32); > >> How about this instead, so we are only changing the behavior for > >> new/unreleased devices: > > I thought this property was only used for new devices whereas the > existing devices rely on REVN. > > -Akhil. > > >> > >> *value = adreno_gpu->rev.patchid | > >> (adreno_gpu->rev.minor << 8) | > >> (adreno_gpu->rev.major << 16) | > >> (adreno_gpu->rev.core << 24); > >> if (!adreno_gpu->info->revn) > >> *value |= (((uint64_t) adreno_gpu->rev.sku) << 32); > >> > >> (sorry about the butchered indentation.. somehow gmail has become > >> antagonistic about pasting code) > > I assume that you would like to keep userspace compat for older chips. > > thus the if. > > Maybe we should introduce MSM_PARAM_CHIP_ID_SKU instead (and gradually > > make userspace switch to it)? > > Existing userspace tools do query CHIP_ID, but match based on GPU_ID (falling back to CHIP_ID only if GPU_ID==0).. still, out of an abundance of caution, we should probably not change the behavior for existing GPUs. But so far the only thing with GPU_ID==0 does not exist in the wild yet, so I think we can get away without having to introduce a new param if we only set the upper bits of CHIP_ID when GPU_ID==0. BR, -R
