On Fri, 17 May 2019 22:08:56 +0200, Chris Wilson
<chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Quoting Michal Wajdeczko (2019-05-17 19:01:06)
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?
Would a similar one for huc also work? Would it be reliable enough to
replace HUC_STATUS query? (Seems silly to wake the device up just to
answer if we've loaded the firmware successfully.)
I'm not sure that we can drop HUC_STATUS query as maybe this bit can
go off (who can confirm that?) but we definitely can replace HAS_HUC
(btw it should be USES_HUC) with new intel_huc_is_loaded
Michal
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
