Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2019-11-22 09:21:45)
>
> On 22/11/2019 04:02, Ramalingam C wrote:
> > @@ -568,9 +581,22 @@ static void icl_ctx_workarounds_init(struct intel_engine_cs *engine,
> > static void tgl_ctx_workarounds_init(struct intel_engine_cs *engine,
> > struct i915_wa_list *wal)
> > {
> > + u32 val;
> > +
> > /* Wa_1409142259:tgl */
> > WA_SET_BIT_MASKED(GEN11_COMMON_SLICE_CHICKEN3,
> > GEN12_DISABLE_CPS_AWARE_COLOR_PIPE);
> > +
> > + /* Wa_1604555607:tgl */
> > + val = intel_uncore_read(engine->uncore, FF_MODE2);
> > + val &= ~FF_MODE2_TDS_TIMER_MASK;
> > + val |= FF_MODE2_TDS_TIMER_128;
> > + /*
> > + * FIXME: FF_MODE2 register is not readable till TGL B0. We can
> > + * enable verification of WA from the later steppings, which enables
> > + * the read of FF_MODE2.
> > + */
> > + __wa_write_masked_or(wal, FF_MODE2, FF_MODE2_TDS_TIMER_MASK, val, 0);
>
> If I was a betting man I'd bet no one will ever remember to add the
> verification back. So I have to say I disagree with Lucas on this point.
> Someone do a casting vote please. :)
I would go with IS_TGL_REVID(A0, A0) as we expect it to be picked up by
the selftests if we have a new stepping that is unfixed -- and a blip in
CI is a much clearer reminder to come back and revisit this code. We
should be able to go "oops, live_workarounds is red, failing on ctx:0xf00"
and from there find this fixme. And so update for a new stepping in the
course of a day (because that's how long it takes for CI to approve a
patch).
-Chris
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
