On 11/25/20 11:18 AM, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 09:51:04AM -0800, Aditya Swarup wrote:
>> On 11/25/20 7:33 AM, Chris Wilson wrote:
>>> Quoting Jani Nikula (2020-11-25 11:45:56)
>>>> On Tue, 24 Nov 2020, Aditya Swarup <aditya.swarup@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>> Fix TGL REVID macros to fetch correct display/gt stepping based
>>>>> on SOC rev id from INTEL_REVID() macro. Previously, we were just
>>>>> returning the first element of the revid array instead of using
>>>>> the correct index based on SOC rev id.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, add array bound checks for TGL REV ID array. Since, there
>>>>> might be a possibility of using older kernels on latest platform
>>>>> revision, resulting in out of bounds access for rev ID array.
>>>>> In this scenario, print message for unsupported rev ID and apply
>>>>> settings for latest rev ID available.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fixes: ("drm/i915/tgl: Fix stepping WA matching")
>>>>> Cc: José Roberto de Souza <jose.souza@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> Cc: Matt Roper <matthew.d.roper@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> Cc: Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> Cc: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> Cc: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Aditya Swarup <aditya.swarup@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h | 35 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
>>>>> 1 file changed, 29 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
>>>>> index 15be8debae54..29d55b7017be 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
>>>>> @@ -1572,16 +1572,37 @@ enum {
>>>>> TGL_REVID_D0,
>>>>> };
>>>>>
>>>>> -extern const struct i915_rev_steppings tgl_uy_revids[];
>>>>> -extern const struct i915_rev_steppings tgl_revids[];
>>>>> +extern const struct i915_rev_steppings tgl_uy_revids[4];
>>>>> +extern const struct i915_rev_steppings tgl_revids[2];
>>>>
>>>> Just a quick note, the compiler does not check that the size in the
>>>> extern declaration matches the size in the array definition. So you
>>>> might end up with a mismatch without noticing.
>>
>> Yes.. We will have to take care of it if we are adding rev id to array table(which mostly
>> should remain a const once we decide to go upstream). Without this declaration, I cannot
>> use ARRAY_SIZE() macro with revid arrays as the sizeof() operator complains about not
>> knowing the size of the array in question as it is an extern declaration.
>>
>> So, I don't know what other approach you want to suggest? If we move all the array tables to i915_drv.h(which
>> I feel would be a better approach rather than having it in intel_workarounds.c), Matt
>> Roper's KBL patch says that compiler complains about unused variables.
>
> adding the table in the header means that each compilation unit (.o)
> will get a copy of the table when it includes the header (it will end up
> being trimmed out if not used though). This is not what you want.
>
> As I said in the other reply, sizeof does actually work here:
The question is not about sizeof() not working but rather the usage of ARRAY_SIZE()
macro in i915_drv.h with just extern declaration without size specified.
>
> $ cat /tmp/a.c
> #include <stdio.h>
>
> #include "b.h"
>
> int main(int argc, const char *argv[])
> {
> printf("%zu", sizeof(tgl_uy_revids));
> return 0;
> }
>
> $ cat /tmp/b.h
> #pragma once
>
> struct i915_rev_steppings { int a; };
> extern const struct i915_rev_steppings tgl_uy_revids[4];
You are specifying the size in the extern declaration which will make the ARRAY_SIZE()
macro work if used in the header else it will complain.
>
> $ cat /tmp/b.c
> #include "b.h"
>
> const struct i915_rev_steppings tgl_uy_revids[] = {
> { 10 },
> { 20 },
> { 30 },
> { 40 },
> };
>
> And compiler also warns if in the *definition* of tgl_uy_revids it goes
> over the amount of space of the declaration. For clarity, you may
> however want to add a define to tell the size:
>
>
> -extern const struct i915_rev_steppings tgl_uy_revids[4];
> +#define TGL_UY_REVIDS_SIZE 4
> +extern const struct i915_rev_steppings tgl_uy_revids[TGL_UY_REVIDS_SIZE];
>
> and do the same in the .c
I will go ahead with this approach.
Aditya
>
>>
>> We are anyhow going to correct the whole thing with your stepping series anyway. This is supposed
>> to be a stop gap fix. Revids shouldn't be changing for TGL anymore.
>>
>>>
>>> What surprised me is that this defeated the __must_be_array() check.
>>> I thought these were just pointers to C
>>>
>>>>> +#define TGL_UY_REVID_RANGE(revid) \
>>>>> + ((revid) < ARRAY_SIZE(tgl_uy_revids))
>>>>> +
>>>>> +#define TGL_REVID_RANGE(revid) \
>>>>> + ((revid) < ARRAY_SIZE(tgl_revids))
>>>>>
>>>>> static inline const struct i915_rev_steppings *
>>>>> tgl_revids_get(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
>>>>> {
>>>>> - if (IS_TGL_U(dev_priv) || IS_TGL_Y(dev_priv))
>>>>> - return tgl_uy_revids;
>>>>> - else
>>>>> - return tgl_revids;
>>>>> + const u8 revid = INTEL_REVID(dev_priv);
>>>>> +
>>>>> + if (IS_TGL_U(dev_priv) || IS_TGL_Y(dev_priv)) {
>>>>> + if (TGL_UY_REVID_RANGE(revid)) {
>>>>> + return tgl_uy_revids + revid;
>>>>> + } else {
>>>>> + drm_dbg_kms(&dev_priv->drm,
>>>>> + "Unsupported SOC stepping found %u, using %lu instead\n",
>>>>> + revid, ARRAY_SIZE(tgl_uy_revids) - 1);
>>>
>>> Also please don't have a dbg for every single IS_TGL_*_REVID
>>> invocation. And this is not _kms, but driver; better yet, don't bother
>>> with a drm_dbg_kms here at all.
>>>
>>> If you want to actually check, add something like
>>> intel_detect_preproduction_hw() and warn about unknown future revids.
>>> Or include the info when we print the revid in the caps.
>>
>> So, what you are suggesting is add an info print in that function intel_detect_preproduction_hw() right?
>> Or something else?
>>
>>> -Chris
>>>
>>
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
