On 11/19/19 4:21 PM, Chris Wilson wrote:
Quoting Daniele Ceraolo Spurio (2019-11-20 00:04:25)
When GuC is in use we need to make sure it is re-loaded before the call
to gt_resume, otherwise communication from the engines to the GuC will
not be processed, which blocks the engines from ctx switching and from
being reset.
Bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=112205
Cc: Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Daniele Ceraolo Spurio <daniele.ceraolospurio@xxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/selftest_gt_pm.c | 9 +++++++++
1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/selftest_gt_pm.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/selftest_gt_pm.c
index d1752f15702a..0bb17c806dfc 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/selftest_gt_pm.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/selftest_gt_pm.c
@@ -11,8 +11,11 @@ static int live_gt_resume(void *arg)
{
struct intel_gt *gt = arg;
IGT_TIMEOUT(end_time);
+ intel_wakeref_t wakeref;
int err;
+ wakeref = intel_runtime_pm_get(gt->uncore->rpm);
That defeats the point of gt pm, no?
+
/* Do several suspend/resume cycles to check we don't explode! */
do {
intel_gt_suspend_prepare(gt);
@@ -25,6 +28,10 @@ static int live_gt_resume(void *arg)
break;
}
+ err = intel_gt_init_hw(gt);
Hmm. I have that as part of intel_gt_resume. Which also pulls it into
the pm.
I also considered moving init_hw() inside resume(), but in the end opted
not to to keep the fix isolated to the test. But if you have already
done the work...
I think I prefer my plan/patches :)
Can you point me to them if they're already on the list?
Thanks,
Daniele
-Chris
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
