On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 6:43 AM, Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Some registers were not initialized in init, this causes them to be > uninitialized after suspend. > > Signed-off-by: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/core/subdev/ltcg/nvc0.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/core/subdev/ltcg/nvc0.c > index bcca883..7288940 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/core/subdev/ltcg/nvc0.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/core/subdev/ltcg/nvc0.c > @@ -30,8 +30,9 @@ struct nvc0_ltcg_priv { > struct nouveau_ltcg base; > u32 part_nr; > u32 subp_nr; > - struct nouveau_mm tags; > u32 num_tags; > + u32 tag_base; > + struct nouveau_mm tags; > struct nouveau_mm_node *tag_ram; > }; > > @@ -117,10 +118,6 @@ nvc0_ltcg_init_tag_ram(struct nouveau_fb *pfb, struct nvc0_ltcg_priv *priv) > u32 tag_size, tag_margin, tag_align; > int ret; > > - nv_wr32(priv, 0x17e8d8, priv->part_nr); > - if (nv_device(pfb)->card_type >= NV_E0) > - nv_wr32(priv, 0x17e000, priv->part_nr); > - > /* tags for 1/4 of VRAM should be enough (8192/4 per GiB of VRAM) */ > priv->num_tags = (pfb->ram->size >> 17) / 4; > if (priv->num_tags > (1 << 17)) > @@ -152,7 +149,7 @@ nvc0_ltcg_init_tag_ram(struct nouveau_fb *pfb, struct nvc0_ltcg_priv *priv) > tag_base += tag_align - 1; > ret = do_div(tag_base, tag_align); > > - nv_wr32(priv, 0x17e8d4, tag_base); > + priv->tag_base = tag_base; > } > ret = nouveau_mm_init(&priv->tags, 0, priv->num_tags, 1); > > @@ -182,8 +179,6 @@ nvc0_ltcg_ctor(struct nouveau_object *parent, struct nouveau_object *engine, > } > priv->subp_nr = nv_rd32(priv, 0x17e8dc) >> 28; > > - nv_mask(priv, 0x17e820, 0x00100000, 0x00000000); /* INTR_EN &= ~0x10 */ > - > ret = nvc0_ltcg_init_tag_ram(pfb, priv); > if (ret) > return ret; > @@ -209,13 +204,36 @@ nvc0_ltcg_dtor(struct nouveau_object *object) > nouveau_ltcg_destroy(ltcg); > } > > +int > +nvc0_ltcg_init(struct nouveau_object *object) This should probably be a static int. > +{ > + struct nouveau_ltcg *ltcg = (struct nouveau_ltcg *)object; > + struct nvc0_ltcg_priv *priv = (struct nvc0_ltcg_priv *)ltcg; > + struct nouveau_fb *pfb = nouveau_fb(ltcg->base.base.parent); Hm, it's all a bit confusing, but wouldn't nouveau_fb(ltcg) (or priv) work just fine here? nv_device looks at ->parent... but perhaps not hard enough :) > + int ret; > + > + ret = nouveau_subdev_init(&pfb->base); Should this be <cg->base? (Or nouveau_ltcg_init(ltcg) for consistency...) > + if (ret) > + return ret; > + > + nv_mask(priv, 0x17e820, 0x00100000, 0x00000000); /* INTR_EN &= ~0x10 */ > + > + nv_wr32(priv, 0x17e8d8, priv->part_nr); > + if (nv_device(pfb)->card_type >= NV_E0) > + nv_wr32(priv, 0x17e000, priv->part_nr); > + > + nv_wr32(priv, 0x17e8d4, priv->tag_base); > + > + return 0; > +} > + > struct nouveau_oclass > nvc0_ltcg_oclass = { > .handle = NV_SUBDEV(LTCG, 0xc0), > .ofuncs = &(struct nouveau_ofuncs) { > .ctor = nvc0_ltcg_ctor, > .dtor = nvc0_ltcg_dtor, > - .init = _nouveau_ltcg_init, > + .init = nvc0_ltcg_init, > .fini = _nouveau_ltcg_fini, > }, > }; > > _______________________________________________ > Nouveau mailing list > Nouveau@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/nouveau _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel