On Thu, Mar 09, 2023 at 12:03:19AM +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 08, 2023 at 11:58:58AM -0500, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> > uncore->lock only protects the forcewake domain itself,
> > not the register accesses.
> >
> > uncore's _fw alternatives are for cases where the domains
> > are not needed because we are sure that they are already
> > awake.
> >
> > So the move towards the uncore's _fw alternatives seems
> > right, however using the uncore-lock to protect the dsparb
> > registers seems an abuse of the uncore-lock.
> >
> > Let's restore the previous individual lock and try to get
> > rid of the direct uncore accesses from the display code.
> >
> > Cc: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/i9xx_wm.c | 13 ++-----------
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_core.h | 3 +++
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_driver.c | 1 +
> > 3 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/i9xx_wm.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/i9xx_wm.c
> > index caef72d38798..8fe0b5c63d3a 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/i9xx_wm.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/i9xx_wm.c
> > @@ -1771,16 +1771,7 @@ static void vlv_atomic_update_fifo(struct intel_atomic_state *state,
> >
> > trace_vlv_fifo_size(crtc, sprite0_start, sprite1_start, fifo_size);
> >
> > - /*
> > - * uncore.lock serves a double purpose here. It allows us to
> > - * use the less expensive I915_{READ,WRITE}_FW() functions, and
> > - * it protects the DSPARB registers from getting clobbered by
> > - * parallel updates from multiple pipes.
> > - *
> > - * intel_pipe_update_start() has already disabled interrupts
> > - * for us, so a plain spin_lock() is sufficient here.
> > - */
>
> I was wondering if we need to preserve the comment about irqs,
> but since this is the only place using this lock, and it's never
> called from an irq handler a non-irq disabling spinlock will suffice
> anyway.
>
> Reviewed-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
thoughts on this: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_114868v2/fi-kbl-7567u/igt@kms_pipe_crc_basic@nonblocking-crc-frame-sequence@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
maybe related to the usage of this uncore.lock in
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_vblank.c
?
Should we create another spin lock and include both of these cases?
(Then the irq comment is relevant again :))
>
> > - spin_lock(&uncore->lock);
> > + spin_lock(&dev_priv->display.wm.dsparb_lock);
> >
> > switch (crtc->pipe) {
> > case PIPE_A:
> > @@ -1840,7 +1831,7 @@ static void vlv_atomic_update_fifo(struct intel_atomic_state *state,
> >
> > intel_uncore_posting_read_fw(uncore, DSPARB);
> >
> > - spin_unlock(&uncore->lock);
> > + spin_unlock(&dev_priv->display.wm.dsparb_lock);
> > }
> >
> > #undef VLV_FIFO
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_core.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_core.h
> > index fdab7bb93a7d..68c6bfb91dbe 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_core.h
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_core.h
> > @@ -253,6 +253,9 @@ struct intel_wm {
> > */
> > struct mutex wm_mutex;
> >
> > + /* protects DSPARB registers on pre-g4x/vlv/chv */
> > + spinlock_t dsparb_lock;
> > +
> > bool ipc_enabled;
> > };
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_driver.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_driver.c
> > index a53fd339e2cc..c78e36444a12 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_driver.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_driver.c
> > @@ -223,6 +223,7 @@ static int i915_driver_early_probe(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
> > mutex_init(&dev_priv->display.pps.mutex);
> > mutex_init(&dev_priv->display.hdcp.comp_mutex);
> > spin_lock_init(&dev_priv->display.dkl.phy_lock);
> > + spin_lock_init(&dev_priv->display.wm.dsparb_lock);
> >
> > i915_memcpy_init_early(dev_priv);
> > intel_runtime_pm_init_early(&dev_priv->runtime_pm);
> > --
> > 2.39.2
>
> --
> Ville Syrjälä
> Intel
