On 14/06/2019 17:16, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 04:36:57PM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 14/06/2019 16:25, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 04:17:06PM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx>
Start using the newly introduced struct intel_gt to fuse together correct
logical init flow with uncore for more removal of implicit dev_priv in
mmio access.
v2:
* Move code to i915_gem_fence_reg. (Chris)
Signed-off-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c | 4 +--
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h | 1 -
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c | 25 +--------------
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_fence_reg.c | 37 +++++++++++++++++++++++
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_fence_reg.h | 3 ++
5 files changed, 43 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c
index 97155c5eb7e1..1df76f7c717e 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c
@@ -2935,7 +2935,7 @@ static int intel_runtime_suspend(struct device *kdev)
intel_uc_resume(dev_priv);
- i915_gem_init_swizzling(dev_priv);
+ intel_gt_init_swizzling(&dev_priv->gt);
i915_gem_restore_fences(dev_priv);
enable_rpm_wakeref_asserts(dev_priv);
@@ -3036,7 +3036,7 @@ static int intel_runtime_resume(struct device *kdev)
* No point of rolling back things in case of an error, as the best
* we can do is to hope that things will still work (and disable RPM).
*/
- i915_gem_init_swizzling(dev_priv);
+ intel_gt_init_swizzling(&dev_priv->gt);
i915_gem_restore_fences(dev_priv);
/*
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
index e2c8813c9355..1eb203fdee60 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
@@ -2586,7 +2586,6 @@ bool i915_gem_unset_wedged(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv);
void i915_gem_init_mmio(struct drm_i915_private *i915);
int __must_check i915_gem_init(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv);
int __must_check i915_gem_init_hw(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv);
-void i915_gem_init_swizzling(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv);
void i915_gem_fini_hw(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv);
void i915_gem_fini(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv);
int i915_gem_wait_for_idle(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
index 7fdf252f9322..5c0db934315b 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
@@ -1205,29 +1205,6 @@ void i915_gem_sanitize(struct drm_i915_private *i915)
mutex_unlock(&i915->drm.struct_mutex);
}
-void i915_gem_init_swizzling(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
-{
- if (INTEL_GEN(dev_priv) < 5 ||
- dev_priv->mm.bit_6_swizzle_x == I915_BIT_6_SWIZZLE_NONE)
- return;
-
- I915_WRITE(DISP_ARB_CTL, I915_READ(DISP_ARB_CTL) |
- DISP_TILE_SURFACE_SWIZZLING);
-
- if (IS_GEN(dev_priv, 5))
- return;
-
- I915_WRITE(TILECTL, I915_READ(TILECTL) | TILECTL_SWZCTL);
- if (IS_GEN(dev_priv, 6))
- I915_WRITE(ARB_MODE, _MASKED_BIT_ENABLE(ARB_MODE_SWIZZLE_SNB));
- else if (IS_GEN(dev_priv, 7))
- I915_WRITE(ARB_MODE, _MASKED_BIT_ENABLE(ARB_MODE_SWIZZLE_IVB));
- else if (IS_GEN(dev_priv, 8))
- I915_WRITE(GAMTARBMODE, _MASKED_BIT_ENABLE(ARB_MODE_SWIZZLE_BDW));
- else
- BUG();
-}
-
static void init_unused_ring(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv, u32 base)
{
I915_WRITE(RING_CTL(base), 0);
@@ -1274,7 +1251,7 @@ int i915_gem_init_hw(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
/* ...and determine whether they are sticking. */
intel_gt_verify_workarounds(dev_priv, "init");
- i915_gem_init_swizzling(dev_priv);
+ intel_gt_init_swizzling(&dev_priv->gt);
/*
* At least 830 can leave some of the unused rings
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_fence_reg.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_fence_reg.c
index 1c9466676caf..fc268599a0c3 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_fence_reg.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_fence_reg.c
@@ -834,3 +834,40 @@ void i915_ggtt_init_fences(struct i915_ggtt *ggtt)
i915_gem_restore_fences(i915);
}
+
+void intel_gt_init_swizzling(struct intel_gt *gt)
+{
+ struct drm_i915_private *i915 = gt->i915;
+ struct intel_uncore *uncore = gt->uncore;
+
+ if (INTEL_GEN(i915) < 5 ||
+ i915->mm.bit_6_swizzle_x == I915_BIT_6_SWIZZLE_NONE)
+ return;
+
+ intel_uncore_write(uncore,
+ DISP_ARB_CTL,
+ intel_uncore_read(uncore, DISP_ARB_CTL) |
+ DISP_TILE_SURFACE_SWIZZLING);
could we change this to intel_uncore_rmw ?
+
+ if (IS_GEN(i915, 5))
+ return;
+
+ intel_uncore_write(uncore,
+ TILECTL,
+ intel_uncore_read(uncore, TILECTL) | TILECTL_SWZCTL);
and here as well?
Yes of course.. marking as TODO.
ops, and I forgot to state that with that already add
Reviewed-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@xxxxxxxxx>
Thanks! I however planned to consolidate with rmw in a separate patch.
Just to keep different class of changes separate. Can I keep the r-b for
this patch as is in this case?
Regards,
Tvrtko
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
