On Fri, Feb 08, 2019 at 05:57:53PM +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 08, 2019 at 05:09:51PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
> > On Fri, 08 Feb 2019, Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > The u32 version field encodes major version in the high word. We've been
> > > checking for version >= 0.2.
> > >
> > > Add opregion version logging while at it.
> > >
> > > Fixes: 04ebaadb9f2d ("drm/i915/opregion: handle VBT sizes bigger than 6 KB")
> > > Cc: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: Imre Deak <imre.deak@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_opregion.c | 11 +++++++++--
> > > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_opregion.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_opregion.c
> > > index 30ae96c5c97c..7e4152d97c45 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_opregion.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_opregion.c
> > > @@ -46,6 +46,9 @@
> > > #define OPREGION_ASLE_EXT_OFFSET 0x1C00
> > >
> > > #define OPREGION_SIGNATURE "IntelGraphicsMem"
> > > +
> > > +#define OPREGION_VERSION(major, minor) (((major) << 16) | (minor))
> > > +
> > > #define MBOX_ACPI (1<<0)
> > > #define MBOX_SWSCI (1<<1)
> > > #define MBOX_ASLE (1<<2)
> > > @@ -924,6 +927,10 @@ int intel_opregion_setup(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
> > > opregion->header = base;
> > > opregion->lid_state = base + ACPI_CLID;
> > >
> > > + DRM_DEBUG_DRIVER("ACPI OpRegion version %u.%u\n",
> > > + opregion->header->opregion_ver >> 16,
> > > + opregion->header->opregion_ver & 0xffff);
> > > +
> >
> > This is ridiculous and maddening. On our CI APL this prints [1]:
> >
> > <7>[ 7.029368] [drm:intel_opregion_setup [i915]] ACPI OpRegion version 512.0
> >
> > Yes, version 512.0.
> >
> > Digging into it, I found one random version of the opregion spec that
> > has:
> >
> > Bits [31:16] - Major Version Number
> > Bits [23:0] - Minor Version Number
> >
> > The minor is supposed to be [15:0]. But this APL (maybe others, need to
> > investigate) has the major version encoded to bits 31:24.
>
> Most copies of the spec I have seem to have the 24 + 16 bits mess.
>
> They also claim that HSW+ should generally have version 3.0. So
> not sure this 2.0 vs. 2.1 business even makes sense.
>
> We should probably grab the opregion from all the machines we have
> around and see what they actully look like.
Here's the output from my random opregion collection:
bsw_rvp_BRAS.opregion
over: 0x02000000
bw_ASUS_P5E-VM_HDMI.opregion
over: 0x01010000
cl_hp_compaq_6910p.opregion
over: 0x01010000
ctg_dell_latitude_e5400.opregion
over: 0x02000000
dell_xps_13_9350.opregion
over: 0x02000000
elk.opregion
over: 0x02000000
hsw_brix_pro_GIGABYTE_M4HM87P.opregion
over: 0x02000000
hsw_Gigabyte_Z97x-UD5H.opregion
over: 0x02000000
hsw_shark_bay_HSWLPTU1.opregion
over: 0x02000000
ilk_dell_latiture_e5410.opregion
over: 0x02000000
ivb_BHZ7710H.opregion
over: 0x02000000
ivb_Lenovo_ThinkPad_X1_Carbon.opregion
over: 0x02000000
skl_MSI_MS-7971.opregion
over: 0x02000000
snb_Dell_XPS_8300.opregion
over: 0x02000000
vlv_ffrd8_BLAKFF81.ppregion
So looks like all of them have the major in [31:24].
--
Ville Syrjälä
Intel
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
