Re: [PATCH 01/15] drm/i915/guc: Add support for data reporting in GuC responses

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 8/4/2017 9:26 AM, Michal Wajdeczko wrote:
GuC may return additional data in the command status response.
Format and meaning of this data is action specific.
We will use this non-negative data as a new success return value.

Signed-off-by: Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdeczko@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Oscar Mateo <oscar.mateo@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Michel Thierry <michel.thierry@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Daniele Ceraolo Spurio <daniele.ceraolospurio@xxxxxxxxx>
---
  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_ct.c   | 14 +++++++-------
  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_fwif.h |  6 ++++++
  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uc.c       |  5 ++++-
  3 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_ct.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_ct.c
index c4cbec1..1249868 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_ct.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_ct.c
@@ -387,9 +387,9 @@ static int ctch_send(struct intel_guc *guc,
  	err = wait_for_response(desc, fence, status);
  	if (unlikely(err))
  		return err;
-	if (*status != INTEL_GUC_STATUS_SUCCESS)
+	if (INTEL_GUC_RECV_TO_STATUS(*status) != INTEL_GUC_STATUS_SUCCESS)
  		return -EIO;
-	return 0;
+	return INTEL_GUC_RECV_TO_DATA(*status);
  }
/*
@@ -399,18 +399,18 @@ static int intel_guc_send_ct(struct intel_guc *guc, const u32 *action, u32 len)
  {
  	struct intel_guc_ct_channel *ctch = &guc->ct.host_channel;
  	u32 status = ~0; /* undefined */
-	int err;
+	int ret;
mutex_lock(&guc->send_mutex); - err = ctch_send(guc, ctch, action, len, &status);
-	if (unlikely(err)) {
+	ret = ctch_send(guc, ctch, action, len, &status);
+	if (unlikely(ret < 0)) {
  		DRM_ERROR("CT: send action %#X failed; err=%d status=%#X\n",
-			  action[0], err, status);
+			  action[0], ret, status);
  	}
mutex_unlock(&guc->send_mutex);
-	return err;
+	return ret;
  }
/**
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_fwif.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_fwif.h
index 5fa2860..98c0560 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_fwif.h
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_fwif.h
@@ -567,10 +567,16 @@ enum intel_guc_action {
   * command in SS0. The response is distinguishable from a command
   * by the fact that all the MASK bits are set. The remaining bits
   * give more detail.
+ * Bits [16:27] are reserved for optional data reporting.
   */
  #define	INTEL_GUC_RECV_MASK	((u32)0xF0000000)
  #define	INTEL_GUC_RECV_IS_RESPONSE(x)	((u32)(x) >= INTEL_GUC_RECV_MASK)
  #define	INTEL_GUC_RECV_STATUS(x)	(INTEL_GUC_RECV_MASK | (x))
+#define INTEL_GUC_RECV_DATA_SHIFT	16
+#define INTEL_GUC_RECV_DATA_MASK	(0xFFF << INTEL_GUC_RECV_DATA_SHIFT)
+#define INTEL_GUC_RECV_TO_STATUS(x)	((x) & ~ INTEL_GUC_RECV_DATA_MASK)

checkpatch should have complained about the blank space after '~'.

+#define INTEL_GUC_RECV_TO_DATA(x)	(((x) & INTEL_GUC_RECV_DATA_MASK) >> \
+					 INTEL_GUC_RECV_DATA_SHIFT)
/* GUC will return status back to SOFT_SCRATCH_O_REG */
  enum intel_guc_status {
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uc.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uc.c
index 27e072c..ff25477 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uc.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uc.c
@@ -502,7 +502,7 @@ int intel_guc_send_mmio(struct intel_guc *guc, const u32 *action, u32 len)
  					   INTEL_GUC_RECV_MASK,
  					   INTEL_GUC_RECV_MASK,
  					   10, 10, &status);
-	if (status != INTEL_GUC_STATUS_SUCCESS) {
+	if (INTEL_GUC_RECV_TO_STATUS(status) != INTEL_GUC_STATUS_SUCCESS) {
  		/*
  		 * Either the GuC explicitly returned an error (which
  		 * we convert to -EIO here) or no response at all was
@@ -514,6 +514,9 @@ int intel_guc_send_mmio(struct intel_guc *guc, const u32 *action, u32 len)
  		DRM_WARN("INTEL_GUC_SEND: Action 0x%X failed;"
  			 " ret=%d status=0x%08X response=0x%08X\n",
  			 action[0], ret, status, I915_READ(SOFT_SCRATCH(15)));
+	} else {
+		/* Use data encoded in status dword as return value */
+		ret = INTEL_GUC_RECV_TO_DATA(status);
  	}
intel_uncore_forcewake_put(dev_priv, guc->send_regs.fw_domains);


Other than the blank space after that '~', it looks good to me.

Just a note, for other people reading this; there are 3 cases in which intel_guc_send return value is only checked for truthiness (i.e. __guc_allocate_doorbell, __guc_deallocate_doorbell and intel_guc_sample_forcewake callers are checking for 'if (err)').

I know none of the existing H2G commands will return any extra data, so intel_guc_send should be returning only negative numbers or zero (for now).

-Michel
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx




[Index of Archives]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]
  Powered by Linux