On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 10:31:46 +0200, Sagar Arun Kamble
<sagar.a.kamble@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: Tom O'Rourke <Tom.O'Rourke@xxxxxxxxx>
GuC is currently being used for submission and HuC authentication.
Choices can be configured through enable_guc modparam. GuC SLPC is GT
Power and Performance management feature in GuC. Add another option to
enable_guc modparam to control SLPC.
v1: Add early call to sanitize enable_guc_slpc in intel_guc_ucode_init
Remove sanitize enable_guc_slpc call before firmware version check
is performed. (ChrisW)
Version check is added in next patch and that will be done as part
of slpc_enable_sanitize function in the next patch. (Sagar) Updated
slpc option sanitize function call for platforms without GuC support.
This was caught by CI BAT.
v2: Changed parameter to dev_priv for HAS_SLPC macro. (David)
Code indentation based on checkpatch.
v3: Rebase.
v4: Moved sanitization of SLPC option post GuC load.
v5: Removed function intel_slpc_enabled. Planning to rely only on kernel
parameter. Moved sanitization prior to GuC load to use the parameter
during SLPC state setup during to GuC load. (Sagar)
v6: Commit message update. Rebase.
v7: Moved SLPC option sanitization to intel_uc_sanitize_options.
v8: Clearing SLPC option on GuC load failure. Change moved from later
patch. (Sagar)
v9: s/enable_slpc/enable_guc_slpc. Rebase w.r.t modparam change.
v10: Rebase. Separate modparam is not needed now that we maintain all
options in single param enable_guc.
Suggested-by: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni@xxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Tom O'Rourke <Tom.O'Rourke@xxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Sagar Arun Kamble <sagar.a.kamble@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Radoslaw Szwichtenberg <radoslaw.szwichtenberg@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdeczko@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Sujaritha Sundaresan <sujaritha.sundaresan@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Jeff McGee <jeff.mcgee@xxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_params.c | 5 +++--
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_params.h | 1 +
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uc.c | 23 +++++++++++++++++++----
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uc.h | 6 ++++++
4 files changed, 29 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_params.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_params.c
index 08108ce..40b799b 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_params.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_params.c
@@ -150,9 +150,10 @@ i915_param_named_unsafe(edp_vswing, int, 0400,
"2=default swing(400mV))");
i915_param_named_unsafe(enable_guc, int, 0400,
- "Enable GuC load for GuC submission and/or HuC load. "
+ "Enable GuC load for GuC submission and/or HuC load and/or GuC SLPC. "
"Required functionality can be selected using bitmask values. "
- "(-1=auto, 0=disable [default], 1=GuC submission, 2=HuC load)");
+ "(-1=auto, 0=disable [default], 1=GuC submission, 2=HuC load, "
+ "4=GuC SLPC)");
Maybe to avoid later surprise, we should explicitly say that:
+ "4=GuC SLPC [requires GuC submission])");
i915_param_named(guc_log_level, int, 0400,
"GuC firmware logging level. Requires GuC to be loaded. "
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_params.h
b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_params.h
index c963603..2484925 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_params.h
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_params.h
@@ -32,6 +32,7 @@ struct drm_printer;
#define ENABLE_GUC_SUBMISSION BIT(0)
#define ENABLE_GUC_LOAD_HUC BIT(1)
+#define ENABLE_GUC_SLPC BIT(2)
#define I915_PARAMS_FOR_EACH(param) \
param(char *, vbt_firmware, NULL) \
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uc.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uc.c
index 1cffaf7..0e4a97f 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uc.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uc.c
@@ -56,9 +56,15 @@ static int __get_platform_enable_guc(struct
drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
struct intel_uc_fw *huc_fw = &dev_priv->huc.fw;
int enable_guc = 0;
- /* Default is to enable GuC/HuC if we know their firmwares */
- if (intel_uc_fw_is_selected(guc_fw))
+ /*
+ * Default is to enable GuC submission/SLPC/HuC if we know their
+ * firmwares
+ */
+ if (intel_uc_fw_is_selected(guc_fw)) {
enable_guc |= ENABLE_GUC_SUBMISSION;
+ enable_guc |= ENABLE_GUC_SLPC;
+ }
+
if (intel_uc_fw_is_selected(huc_fw))
enable_guc |= ENABLE_GUC_LOAD_HUC;
@@ -110,10 +116,11 @@ static void sanitize_options_early(struct
drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
if (i915_modparams.enable_guc < 0)
i915_modparams.enable_guc = __get_platform_enable_guc(dev_priv);
- DRM_DEBUG_DRIVER("enable_guc=%d (submission:%s huc:%s)\n",
+ DRM_DEBUG_DRIVER("enable_guc=%d (submission:%s huc:%s slpc:%s)\n",
i915_modparams.enable_guc,
yesno(intel_uc_is_using_guc_submission()),
- yesno(intel_uc_is_using_huc()));
+ yesno(intel_uc_is_using_huc()),
+ yesno(intel_uc_is_using_guc_slpc()));
/* Verify GuC firmware availability */
if (intel_uc_is_using_guc() && !intel_uc_fw_is_selected(guc_fw)) {
@@ -123,6 +130,14 @@ static void sanitize_options_early(struct
drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
"no GuC firmware");
}
+ /* Verify GuC submission and SLPC dependency */
+ if (intel_uc_is_using_guc_slpc() &&
+ !intel_uc_is_using_guc_submission()) {
+ DRM_WARN("Incompatible option detected: %s=%d, "
+ "GuC SLPC enabled without enabling GuC submission!\n",
+ "enable_guc", i915_modparams.enable_guc);
If this is unsupported variant, then maybe we should clear slpc bit:
i915_modparams.enable_guc &= ~ENABLE_GUC_SLPC;
+ }
+
/* Verify HuC firmware availability */
if (intel_uc_is_using_huc() && !intel_uc_fw_is_selected(huc_fw)) {
DRM_WARN("Incompatible option detected: %s=%d, %s!\n",
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uc.h
b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uc.h
index 25d73ad..76139d3 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uc.h
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uc.h
@@ -59,4 +59,10 @@ static inline bool intel_uc_is_using_huc(void)
return i915_modparams.enable_guc & ENABLE_GUC_LOAD_HUC;
}
+static inline bool intel_uc_is_using_guc_slpc(void)
+{
+ GEM_BUG_ON(i915_modparams.enable_guc < 0);
+ return i915_modparams.enable_guc & ENABLE_GUC_SLPC;
+}
+
#endif
In intel_uc_init_hw() we print summary, so maybe add there:
dev_info(dev_priv->drm.dev, "GuC SLPC %s\n",
enableddisabled(USES_GUC_SLPC(dev_priv)));
Then we can move USES_GUC_SLPC() definition from patch 2 to 1.
With all that,
Reviewed-by: Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdeczko@xxxxxxxxx>
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
