Quoting Aditya Swarup (2020-11-25 17:51:04)
> 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:
> >>> 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?
I wouldn't put it in detect_preproduction, just using that as an example
of when we do probes for unexpected revids. E.g.,
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c
index ca16ea541ecc..f1ff5509c23a 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c
@@ -273,6 +273,21 @@ static void intel_detect_preproduction_hw(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
}
}
+/*
+ * HW that is more recent than the kernel runs the risk of us applying
+ * stale and disruptive w/a. Leave a debug tell-tale just in case.
+ */
+static void intel_detect_unknown_hw(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
+{
+ bool post = false;
+
+ if (post) {
+ drm_dbg(&dev_priv->drm,
+ "This machine is more recent than the w/a database!\n");
+ add_taint(TAINT_MACHINE_CHECK, LOCKDEP_STILL_OK);
+ }
+}
+
static void sanitize_gpu(struct drm_i915_private *i915)
{
if (!INTEL_INFO(i915)->gpu_reset_clobbers_display)
@@ -343,6 +358,7 @@ static int i915_driver_early_probe(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
intel_init_audio_hooks(dev_priv);
intel_detect_preproduction_hw(dev_priv);
+ intel_detect_unknown_hw(dev_priv);
return 0;
The taint is probably not justified in this case.
-Chris
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
