On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 02:22:50PM -0700, José Roberto de Souza wrote:
> IPC was only added in SKL+(actually we don't even enable for SKL due
> WA) so without this change, driver was writing to a reserved bit.
>
> Also check for the WA in intel_init_ipc() to avoid further writes to
> ipc_enabled.
>
> Signed-off-by: José Roberto de Souza <jose.souza@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c | 8 ++++----
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c
> index d99e5fabe93c..b2328f7d277d 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c
> @@ -6108,10 +6108,8 @@ void intel_enable_ipc(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
> u32 val;
>
> /* Display WA #0477 WaDisableIPC: skl */
> - if (IS_SKYLAKE(dev_priv)) {
> - dev_priv->ipc_enabled = false;
> + if (!HAS_IPC(dev_priv) || IS_SKYLAKE(dev_priv))
> return;
> - }
>
> val = I915_READ(DISP_ARB_CTL2);
>
> @@ -6126,7 +6124,9 @@ void intel_enable_ipc(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
> void intel_init_ipc(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
> {
> dev_priv->ipc_enabled = false;
> - if (!HAS_IPC(dev_priv))
> +
> + /* Display WA #0477 WaDisableIPC: skl */
What about move the WA 0477 inside HAS_IPC and avoid the
duplication?
> + if (!HAS_IPC(dev_priv) || IS_SKYLAKE(dev_priv))
> return;
>
> dev_priv->ipc_enabled = true;
> --
> 2.19.0
>
> _______________________________________________
> Intel-gfx mailing list
> Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
