On 12/1/2024 10:06 PM, Rob Clark wrote:
> 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?
Sounds like that would work. Can we explore that separately?
I am a bit worried about adding another subsystem's patch to this
series. That might delay this series by weeks.
-Akhil
>
> BR,
> -R
>
>> Agree about the dt binding suggestion. I will define a new compatible
>> string for rgmu.
>>
>> -Akhil.
>>
>>> Konrad
>>
