On Fri, 17 May 2019 19:14:01 +0200, Chris Wilson
<chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Quoting Michal Wajdeczko (2019-05-17 18:11:07)
On Fri, 17 May 2019 18:31:31 +0200, Chris Wilson
<chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Quoting Michal Wajdeczko (2019-05-17 17:22:25)
>> We may skip reset preparation steps if GuC is already sanitized.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdeczko@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Daniele Ceraolo Spurio <daniele.ceraolospurio@xxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uc.c | 3 +++
>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uc.c
>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uc.c
>> index 86edfa5ad72e..36c53a42927c 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uc.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uc.c
>> @@ -499,6 +499,9 @@ void intel_uc_reset_prepare(struct
drm_i915_private
>> *i915)
>> if (!USES_GUC(i915))
>> return;
>>
>> + if (!intel_guc_is_alive(guc))
>> + return;
>
> Does it not replace "if (!USES_GUC(i915))"?
Yes it can, as we will never fetch/upload fw if we don't plan to use it
;)
Btw, I'm thinking of renaming intel_guc_is_alive to intel_guc_is_loaded
or intel_guc_is_started to better describe what this function is
reporting,
as one can think that intel_guc_is_alive is actually checking that GuC
fw
is responsive, which in general might not be the same as "loaded"
Either seems reasonable, though there might be good reason to have both
:)
intel_guc_is_loaded
intel_guc_has_started / intel_guc_is_active
On GuC load failure, or on reset, we immediately sanitize fw load status,
so until we provide real runtime connectivity check, if ever be required,
I assume we can stay with just one function: intel_guc_is_loaded, ok?
Michal
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
