On Wed, 30 Nov 2022 12:00:57 -0800, Umesh Nerlige Ramappa wrote:
>
> 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.
What I was saying was let's say WAIT_FOR_RC6_EXIT moved to 0xc0ffee so now
should 0xc0ffee be added to mtl_oa_mux_regs?
>
> >
> >> + */
> >> +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.
No I can quickly review again anyway.
> > If you decide to split the patches, please add my R-b on all the split patches.
Thanks.
--
Ashutosh
