Re: [PATCH 2/2] drm/i915: Implement read-only support in whitelist selftest

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 03/07/2019 20:43, John Harrison wrote:
On 7/3/2019 01:32, Chris Wilson wrote:
Quoting John.C.Harrison@xxxxxxxxx (2019-07-03 03:06:04)
From: John Harrison <John.C.Harrison@xxxxxxxxx>

Newer hardware supports extra feature in the whitelist registers. This
patch updates the selftest to test that entries marked as read only
are actually read only.

Signed-off-by: John Harrison <John.C.Harrison@xxxxxxxxx>
CC: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx>
---
  .../gpu/drm/i915/gt/selftest_workarounds.c    | 43 +++++++++++++------
  1 file changed, 31 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/selftest_workarounds.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/selftest_workarounds.c
index f8151d5946c8..5cd2b17105ba 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/selftest_workarounds.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/selftest_workarounds.c
@@ -482,12 +482,12 @@ static int check_dirty_whitelist(struct i915_gem_context *ctx,
                 u32 srm, lrm, rsvd;
                 u32 expect;
                 int idx;
+               bool ro_reg;
                 if (wo_register(engine, reg))
                         continue;
-               if (ro_register(reg))
-                       continue;
+               ro_reg = ro_register(reg);
                 srm = MI_STORE_REGISTER_MEM;
                 lrm = MI_LOAD_REGISTER_MEM;
@@ -588,24 +588,37 @@ static int check_dirty_whitelist(struct i915_gem_context *ctx,
                 }
                 GEM_BUG_ON(values[ARRAY_SIZE(values) - 1] != 0xffffffff); -               rsvd = results[ARRAY_SIZE(values)]; /* detect write masking */
-               if (!rsvd) {
-                       pr_err("%s: Unable to write to whitelisted register %x\n",
-                              engine->name, reg);
-                       err = -EINVAL;
-                       goto out_unpin;
+               if (ro_reg) {
+                       rsvd = 0xFFFFFFFF;
rsvd = 0;

reg_write() will then dtrt.
It seemed too suspiciously broken to have the test claim a read-only register was successfully written to. This way makes it clear that the test expects read-only to always return the first value read.

I suggest we go with this version if it is not too-disagreeable. Chris?

John can only hope it still applies.

Regards,

Tvrtko

Does this not replace the skip placed in check_whitelisted_registers()?
The two versions of that test looks like they need to be able to set values. So they can't be run on read-only registers.

We still need a way to verify that the register exists, as even writing
from a secure batch fails (not tried ring though). Do we load a spinner,
tweak via mmio?

I don't think there is a reliable, generic mechanism to test that you can actually read from a read only register. You need to know what content it should provide. Even the current test (that it always returns the same value) would break if the register changes dynamically (e.g. it's a hardware counter).

John.


_______________________________________________
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




[Index of Archives]     [AMD Graphics]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux