On 5/11/2022 4:14 PM, Matthew Auld wrote:
On Wed, 11 May 2022 at 13:34, Das, Nirmoy <nirmoy.das@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 5/11/2022 1:31 PM, Matthew Auld wrote:
On Wed, 11 May 2022 at 11:25, Nirmoy Das <nirmoy.das@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Determine lmem_size using ADDR_RANGE register so that module
load on platfrom with small bar with css works.
Signed-off-by: Nirmoy Das <nirmoy.das@xxxxxxxxx>
---
I once reserved a dg2 machine with small bar and module load failed on
it. I can't find that machine anymore hence sending this as RFC.
AFAIK we currently don't want to load the driver on such dg2
configurations, until we first have all the uapi bits landed.
Ok, sounds good.
The last
patch in that series then turns this on, or at least that's what I
have locally.
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_region_lmem.c | 11 ++++++++++-
1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_region_lmem.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_region_lmem.c
index f5111c0a0060..a55eecac104e 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_region_lmem.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_region_lmem.c
@@ -100,10 +100,19 @@ static struct intel_memory_region *setup_lmem(struct intel_gt *gt)
if (!IS_DGFX(i915))
return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV);
+ if (IS_DG1(uncore->i915)) {
+ lmem_size = pci_resource_len(pdev, 2);
We can drop this, since this is set below also.
+ } else {
+ resource_size_t lmem_range;
+
+ lmem_range = intel_gt_read_register(&i915->gt0, XEHPSDV_TILE0_ADDR_RANGE) & 0xFFFF;
+ lmem_size = lmem_range >> XEHPSDV_TILE_LMEM_RANGE_SHIFT;
+ lmem_size *= SZ_1G;
We can move this under HAS_FLAT_CCS.
I think we need another patch that then just gracefully returns
-EINVAL if this is a small-bar configuration, along with maybe some
helpful drm_err() or so, which can be removed once we properly support
it?
I will resend with this suggestion.
Also it looks like we are returning ENODEV in some places here,
which looks iffy.
We do
io_start = pci_resource_start(pdev, 2);
io_size = min(pci_resource_len(pdev, 2), lmem_size);
if (!io_size)
return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV);
Is this return looks iffy?
Yeah, since it will only skips the lmem init, without erroring out
during module load, which I guess leads to nasty errors laters. Also
the lmem_size < flat_ccs_base check.
Yes, makes sense. Going to send patch to clean that up.
Thanks,
Nirmoy
Thanks,
Nirmoy
+ }
+
if (HAS_FLAT_CCS(i915)) {
u64 tile_stolen, flat_ccs_base;
- lmem_size = pci_resource_len(pdev, 2);
flat_ccs_base = intel_gt_read_register(gt, XEHPSDV_FLAT_CCS_BASE_ADDR);
flat_ccs_base = (flat_ccs_base >> XEHPSDV_CCS_BASE_SHIFT) * SZ_64K;
--
2.35.1
