On Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 05:51:13PM -0800, Dixit, Ashutosh wrote:
On Mon, 28 Nov 2022 17:21:46 -0800, Umesh Nerlige Ramappa wrote:
+/*
+ * Ref: 14010536224:
+ * 0x20cc is repurposed on MTL, so use a separate array for MTL.
Wondering if it was WAIT_FOR_RC6_EXIT (seen in gen12_oa_mux_regs) which
moved elsewhere and if that needs to be added to the array below too?
WAIT_FOR_RC6_EXIT (0x20cc) moved elsewhere so it should be "removed"
from mtl oa mux array.
+ */
+static const struct i915_range mtl_oa_mux_regs[] = {
+ { .start = 0x0d00, .end = 0x0d04 }, /* RPM_CONFIG[0-1] */
+ { .start = 0x0d0c, .end = 0x0d2c }, /* NOA_CONFIG[0-8] */
+ { .start = 0x9840, .end = 0x9840 }, /* GDT_CHICKEN_BITS */
+ { .start = 0x9884, .end = 0x9888 }, /* NOA_WRITE */
+};
+
static bool gen7_is_valid_b_counter_addr(struct i915_perf *perf, u32 addr)
{
return reg_in_range_table(addr, gen7_oa_b_counters);
@@ -4349,7 +4372,10 @@ static bool xehp_is_valid_b_counter_addr(struct i915_perf *perf, u32 addr)
static bool gen12_is_valid_mux_addr(struct i915_perf *perf, u32 addr)
{
- return reg_in_range_table(addr, gen12_oa_mux_regs);
+ if (IS_METEORLAKE(perf->i915))
+ return reg_in_range_table(addr, mtl_oa_mux_regs);
+ else
+ return reg_in_range_table(addr, gen12_oa_mux_regs);
But otherwise this is:
Reviewed-by: Ashutosh Dixit <ashutosh.dixit@xxxxxxxxx>
I will break them into separate patches though. If the diff is
identical, I will carry over your R-b on the split patches. Please let
me know if that's a concern.
Thanks,
Umesh
If you decide to split the patches, please add my R-b on all the split patches.
