On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 22:50:53 +0100, Yaodong Li <yaodong.li@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On 02/13/2018 08:06 AM, Michal Wajdeczko wrote:
+static inline int check_huc_fw_fits(struct intel_guc_wopcm *guc_wopcm,
+ u32 huc_fw_size)
+{
+ /*
+ * On Gen9 & CNL A0, hardware requires the total available GuC
WOPCM
+ * size to be larger than or equal to HuC firmware size.
Otherwise,
+ * firmware uploading would fail.
+ */
+ if (guc_wopcm->size - GUC_WOPCM_RESERVED < huc_fw_size)
What if guc_wopcm->size < GUC_WOPCM_RESERVED ?
we've already had following check before this. which had guaranteed
guc_wopcm->size >= guc_fw_size + reserved, thus,
guc_wopcm->size > GUC_WOPCM_RESERVED + GUC_WOPCM_STACK_RESERVED
so, guc_wopcm->size > GUC_WOPCM_RESERVED:-)
reserved = GUC_WOPCM_RESERVED + GUC_WOPCM_STACK_RESERVED;
if ((guc_fw_size + reserved) > guc_wopcm->size) {
DRM_DEBUG_DRIVER("No enough GuC WOPCM for GuC firmware.\n");
return -E2BIG;
}
Hmm, that only proves that current partitioning code is too complicated :)
If you look at diagram it should be possible to implement it as
guc_base = ALIGN(huc_fw_size + WOPCM_RESERVED, KiB(16));
guc_size = ALIGN(guc_fw_size + GUC_WOPCM_RESERVED, KiB(4))
reserved = context_reserved_size(i915);
if (guc_base + guc_size + reserved > WOPCM_DEFAULT_SIZE)
return -E2BIG;
(E&O)
+ return -E2BIG;
+
+ return 0;
+}
+
static inline int gen9_check_dword_gap(struct intel_guc_wopcm
*guc_wopcm)
{
u32 guc_wopcm_start;
@@ -40,15 +54,19 @@ static inline int gen9_check_dword_gap(struct
intel_guc_wopcm *guc_wopcm)
return 0;
}
-static inline int guc_wopcm_size_check(struct intel_guc *guc)
+static inline int guc_wopcm_size_check(struct intel_guc *guc, u32
huc_fw_size)
{
struct drm_i915_private *i915 = guc_to_i915(guc);
struct intel_guc_wopcm *guc_wopcm = &guc->wopcm;
+ int err = 0;
if (IS_GEN9(i915))
- return gen9_check_dword_gap(guc_wopcm);
+ err = gen9_check_dword_gap(guc_wopcm);
- return 0;
+ if (IS_GEN9(i915) || IS_CNL_REVID(i915, CNL_REVID_A0,
CNL_REVID_A0))
+ err = check_huc_fw_fits(guc_wopcm, huc_fw_size);
Hmm, what if gen9_check_dword_gap() fails but check_huc_fw_fits()
passes ?
oops! will fix this.:-)
+
+ return err;
}
/**
@@ -121,7 +139,7 @@ int intel_guc_wopcm_init(struct intel_guc_wopcm
*guc_wopcm, u32 guc_fw_size,
guc->wopcm.size = size;
guc->wopcm.top = top;
- err = guc_wopcm_size_check(guc);
+ err = guc_wopcm_size_check(guc, huc_fw_size);
if (err) {
DRM_DEBUG_DRIVER("GuC WOPCM size check failed.\n");
return err;
I'm more and more convinced that we should use "intel_wopcm" to make
partition and all these checks
These are all GuC wopcm related, it only checks guc wopcm size. so I am
wondering whether
I am still misunderstanding anything here?since the purpose of these
calculation and checks are
clearly all GuC related. To be more precisely GuC DMA related. The
driver's responsibility is to
calculate the GuC DMA offset and GuC wopcm size values based on guc/huc
fw sizes and
all these checks are all for the correctness for the GuC wopcm size.
I don't see any reason why these should be a part of global intel_wopcm
even if we really
want to keep something like wopcm_regions for both guc/huc(though I
still don't know what
the benefit real is to keep something like HuC wopcm region except for
sth like debugfs output?).
even in this case, we still at least keep these as a part of GuC since
we really need it to setup
GuC HW :- Or do you mean we should create an intel_wopcm to carry info
such as
global WOPCM size,guc_fw_size and huc_fw_size? Sorry I am really a
little bit confused here:-(
struct intel_wopcm should carry only results of WOPCM partitioning between
all agents including GuC. There is no need to carry fw sizes as those are
only needed as input for calculations.
You can still program GuC region from uc code.
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
