On 14/02/2023 23:56, Rob Clark wrote:
On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 9:32 AM Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:One of the protected ranges was too small (compared to the data we have downstream). Fix it. Fixes: 408434036958 ("drm/msm/a6xx: update/fix CP_PROTECT initialization") Signed-off-by: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@xxxxxxxxxx> --- drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/a6xx_gpu.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/a6xx_gpu.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/a6xx_gpu.c index 503c750216e6..d6b38bfdb3b4 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/a6xx_gpu.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/a6xx_gpu.c @@ -690,7 +690,7 @@ static const u32 a6xx_protect[] = { A6XX_PROTECT_NORDWR(0x00800, 0x0082), A6XX_PROTECT_NORDWR(0x008a0, 0x0008), A6XX_PROTECT_NORDWR(0x008ab, 0x0024), - A6XX_PROTECT_RDONLY(0x008de, 0x00ae), + A6XX_PROTECT_RDONLY(0x008d0, 0x00bc),Nak, this is intentional, we need userspace to be able to configure the CP counters. Otherwise this would break fdperf, perfetto, etc (although maybe we should comment where we diverge from downstream)
Yes, please. Otherwise it is extremely hard to understand the reason for diversion between the vendor driver and our one.
BR, -RA6XX_PROTECT_NORDWR(0x00900, 0x004d), A6XX_PROTECT_NORDWR(0x0098d, 0x0272), A6XX_PROTECT_NORDWR(0x00e00, 0x0001), -- 2.39.1
-- With best wishes Dmitry
