On Sat, Nov 30, 2024 at 12:30 PM Akhil P Oommen
<quic_akhilpo@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 11/30/2024 7:01 PM, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> > On 25.11.2024 5:33 PM, Akhil P Oommen wrote:
> >> There are a few chipsets which don't have system cache a.k.a LLC.
> >> Currently, the assumption in the driver is that the system cache
> >> availability correlates with the presence of GMU or RPMH, which
> >> is not true. For instance, Snapdragon 6 Gen 1 has RPMH and a GPU
> >> with a full blown GMU, but doesnot have a system cache. So,
> >> introduce an Adreno Quirk flag to check support for system cache
> >> instead of using gmu_wrapper flag.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Akhil P Oommen <quic_akhilpo@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >> drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/a6xx_catalog.c | 3 ++-
> >> drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/a6xx_gpu.c | 7 +------
> >> drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/adreno_gpu.h | 1 +
> >> 3 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/a6xx_catalog.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/a6xx_catalog.c
> >> index 0c560e84ad5a..5e389f6b8b8a 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/a6xx_catalog.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/a6xx_catalog.c
> >> @@ -682,6 +682,7 @@ static const struct adreno_info a6xx_gpus[] = {
> >> },
> >> .gmem = (SZ_128K + SZ_4K),
> >> .inactive_period = DRM_MSM_INACTIVE_PERIOD,
> >> + .quirks = ADRENO_QUIRK_NO_SYSCACHE,
> >> .init = a6xx_gpu_init,
> >> .zapfw = "a610_zap.mdt",
> >> .a6xx = &(const struct a6xx_info) {
> >> @@ -1331,7 +1332,7 @@ static const struct adreno_info a7xx_gpus[] = {
> >> },
> >> .gmem = SZ_128K,
> >> .inactive_period = DRM_MSM_INACTIVE_PERIOD,
> >> - .quirks = ADRENO_QUIRK_HAS_HW_APRIV,
> >> + .quirks = ADRENO_QUIRK_HAS_HW_APRIV | ADRENO_QUIRK_NO_SYSCACHE,
> >> .init = a6xx_gpu_init,
> >> .zapfw = "a702_zap.mbn",
> >> .a6xx = &(const struct a6xx_info) {
> >
> > +a619_holi
> >
> >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/a6xx_gpu.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/a6xx_gpu.c
> >> index 019610341df1..a8b928d0f320 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/a6xx_gpu.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/a6xx_gpu.c
> >> @@ -1863,10 +1863,6 @@ static void a7xx_llc_activate(struct a6xx_gpu *a6xx_gpu)
> >>
> >> static void a6xx_llc_slices_destroy(struct a6xx_gpu *a6xx_gpu)
> >> {
> >> - /* No LLCC on non-RPMh (and by extension, non-GMU) SoCs */
> >> - if (adreno_has_gmu_wrapper(&a6xx_gpu->base))
> >> - return;
> >> -
> >> llcc_slice_putd(a6xx_gpu->llc_slice);
> >> llcc_slice_putd(a6xx_gpu->htw_llc_slice);
> >> }
> >> @@ -1876,8 +1872,7 @@ static void a6xx_llc_slices_init(struct platform_device *pdev,
> >> {
> >> struct device_node *phandle;
> >>
> >> - /* No LLCC on non-RPMh (and by extension, non-GMU) SoCs */
> >> - if (adreno_has_gmu_wrapper(&a6xx_gpu->base))
> >> + if (a6xx_gpu->base.info->quirks & ADRENO_QUIRK_NO_SYSCACHE)
> >> return;
> >
> > I think A612 is the "quirky" one here.. it has some sort of a GMU,
> > but we're choosing not to implement it. maybe a check for
> >
> > if (adreno_has_gmu_wrapper && !adreno_is_a612)
> >
> > would be clearer here, with a comment that RGMU support is not
> > implemented
> >
> >
> >
> > But going further, I'm a bit concerned about dt-bindings.. If we
> > implement RGMU on the driver side in the future, that will require
> > DT changes which will make the currently proposed description invalid.
> >
> > I think a better angle would be to add a adreno_has_rgmu() func with
> > a qcom,adreno-rgmu compatible and plumb it correctly from the get-go.
> >
> > This way, we can avoid this syscache quirk as well.
> >
>
> I am aware of at least Adreno 710 which doesn't have syscache, but has
> proper GMU. And I don't see any reason why there couldn't be another one
> in future to save silicon area. So, a quirk flag doesn't seem so bad in
> this case.
>
> The correct way to avoid this quirk flag is by making LLCC driver return
> a proper error to detect the absence of syscache. Currently, it just
> returns EPROBE_DEFER which put driver in an infinite probe loop.
Hmm, this seems solvable? llcc has a node in the dt, so it seems like
it should be able to tell the difference between not existing and not
being probed yet. Something maybe like, initialize drv_data to NULL
instead of -EPROBE_DEFER, and then in the various entry points, if
(!drv_data) return not_probed_helper(); which would check if a
compatible node exists in dt?
BR,
-R
> Agree about the dt binding suggestion. I will define a new compatible
> string for rgmu.
>
> -Akhil.
>
> > Konrad
>
