On 12/13/2017 12:19 AM, Joonas Lahtinen wrote:
On Tue, 2017-12-12 at 14:56 -0800, Jackie Li wrote:
intel_guc_reg.h should only include definition for GuC registers
and related register bits. GuC WOPCM related values should not
be defined in intel_guc_reg.h
This patch creates a better file structure by moving GuC WOPCM
related definitions int to a new header intel_guc_wopcm.h
and moving GuC WOPCM related functions to a new source file
intel_guc_wopcm.c
Cc: Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdeczko@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Sagar Arun Kamble <sagar.a.kamble@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Jackie Li <yaodong.li@xxxxxxxxx>
<SNIP>
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uc.c
@@ -218,7 +218,7 @@ int intel_uc_init_hw(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
}
/* init WOPCM */
- I915_WRITE(GUC_WOPCM_SIZE, intel_guc_wopcm_size(dev_priv));
+ I915_WRITE(GUC_WOPCM_SIZE, intel_guc_wopcm_size(guc));
This is a write-once register, the code needs to be refactored to
account that somebody (like an ugly BIOS) wrote it already and we have
to live with that value. Otherwise we're digging a hole for future
selves.
It's the way the current code works. I will work out a new patch to
do the code refactoring. Anyhow, this is a good catch! Thanks!
We should also verify that the write sticks as we expect.
For the verification - the following dynamic partitioning patch will
guarantee the correctness of this size value. As for the successful
register updating, I will address it within the new patch code refactoring
patch.
Regards, Joonas
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
