On Thu, 2023-04-20 at 09:35 -0700, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 20, 2023 at 08:36:37AM -0700, Jose Souza wrote:
> > On Thu, 2023-04-20 at 11:27 -0400, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 20, 2023 at 09:19:09AM -0400, Souza, Jose wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 2023-04-19 at 00:29 -0700, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Apr 19, 2023 at 10:16:22AM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> > > > > > On Tue, 18 Apr 2023, Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 18, 2023 at 11:30:18PM -0700, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 18, 2023 at 09:43:37AM -0700, Jose Souza wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Start to move the initialization of display locks from
> > > > > > > > > i915_driver_early_probe(), this way it is also executed when running
> > > > > > > > > Xe kmd.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > This will fix a warning in Xe kmd:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > [ 201.894839] xe 0000:00:02.0: [drm] [ENCODER:235:DDI A/PHY A] failed to retrieve link info, disabling eDP
> > > > > > > > > [ 202.136336] xe 0000:00:02.0: [drm] *ERROR* Failed to write source OUI
> > > > > > > > > [ 202.175346] INFO: trying to register non-static key.
> > > > > > > > > [ 202.175347] irq event stamp: 754060
> > > > > > > > > [ 202.175359] hardirqs last enabled at (754059): [<ffffffff8122cf79>] tick_nohz_idle_enter+0x59/0x80
> > > > > > > > > [ 202.180294] The code is fine but needs lockdep annotation, or maybe
> > > > > > > > > [ 202.183774] hardirqs last disabled at (754060): [<ffffffff811a5539>] do_idle+0x99/0x230
> > > > > > > > > [ 202.192734] you didn't initialize this object before use?
> > > > > > > > > [ 202.198951] softirqs last enabled at (753948): [<ffffffff8114abae>] irq_exit_rcu+0xbe/0x130
> > > > > > > > > [ 202.206882] turning off the locking correctness validator.
> > > > > > > > > [ 202.212236] softirqs last disabled at (753943): [<ffffffff8114abae>] irq_exit_rcu+0xbe/0x130
> > > > > > > > > [ 202.220592] CPU: 2 PID: 1415 Comm: modprobe Tainted: G W 6.3.0-rc4+zeh-xe+ #909
> > > > > > > > > [ 202.243002] Hardware name: Intel Corporation Raptor Lake Client Platform/RaptorLake-P LP5 RVP, BIOS RPLPFWI1.R00.3361.A14.2211151548 11/15/2022
> > > > > > > > > [ 202.255737] Call Trace:
> > > > > > > > > [ 202.258179] <TASK>
> > > > > > > > > [ 202.260275] dump_stack_lvl+0x58/0xc0
> > > > > > > > > [ 202.263922] register_lock_class+0x756/0x7d0
> > > > > > > > > [ 202.268165] ? find_held_lock+0x2b/0x80
> > > > > > > > > [ 202.271975] __lock_acquire+0x72/0x28b0
> > > > > > > > > [ 202.275786] ? debug_object_free+0xb4/0x160
> > > > > > > > > [ 202.279946] lock_acquire+0xd1/0x2d0
> > > > > > > > > [ 202.283503] ? intel_dkl_phy_read+0x18/0x60 [xe]
> > > > > > > > > [ 202.288181] _raw_spin_lock+0x2a/0x40
> > > > > > > > > [ 202.291825] ? intel_dkl_phy_read+0x18/0x60 [xe]
> > > > > > > > > [ 202.296475] intel_dkl_phy_read+0x18/0x60 [xe]
> > > > > > > > > [ 202.300949] icl_aux_power_well_enable+0x2bd/0x400 [xe]
> > > > > > > > > [ 202.306202] ? intel_display_power_grab_async_put_ref+0x75/0x120 [xe]
> > > > > > > > > [ 202.312649] intel_power_well_enable+0x1c/0x70 [xe]
> > > > > > > > > [ 202.317543] __intel_display_power_get_domain.part.0+0x4d/0x70 [xe]
> > > > > > > > > [ 202.323812] intel_display_power_get+0x43/0x70 [xe]
> > > > > > > > > [ 202.328708] intel_tc_port_init+0x199/0x2a0 [xe]
> > > > > > > > > [ 202.333363] intel_ddi_init+0x6ad/0xb00 [xe]
> > > > > > > > > [ 202.337678] intel_modeset_init_nogem+0x536/0x6d0 [xe]
> > > > > > > > > [ 202.342838] xe_display_init_noaccel+0x19/0x40 [xe]
> > > > > > > > > [ 202.347743] xe_device_probe+0x1f5/0x2a0 [xe]
> > > > > > > > > [ 202.352127] xe_pci_probe+0x28c/0x480 [xe]
> > > > > > > > > [ 202.356260] pci_device_probe+0x9d/0x150
> > > > > > > > > [ 202.360164] really_probe+0x19a/0x400
> > > > > > > > > [ 202.363809] ? __pfx___driver_attach+0x10/0x10
> > > > > > > > > [ 202.368226] __driver_probe_device+0x73/0x170
> > > > > > > > > [ 202.372558] driver_probe_device+0x1a/0x90
> > > > > > > > > [ 202.376632] __driver_attach+0xcd/0x1c0
> > > > > > > > > [ 202.380442] bus_for_each_dev+0x72/0xc0
> > > > > > > > > [ 202.384253] bus_add_driver+0x110/0x210
> > > > > > > > > [ 202.388063] driver_register+0x50/0x100
> > > > > > > > > [ 202.391873] ? __pfx_init_module+0x10/0x10 [xe]
> > > > > > > > > [ 202.396431] do_one_initcall+0x55/0x260
> > > > > > > > > [ 202.400245] ? rcu_is_watching+0xd/0x40
> > > > > > > > > [ 202.404058] ? kmalloc_trace+0xa0/0xb0
> > > > > > > > > [ 202.407786] do_init_module+0x45/0x1e0
> > > > > > > > > [ 202.411512] __do_sys_finit_module+0xac/0x120
> > > > > > > > > [ 202.415838] do_syscall_64+0x37/0x90
> > > > > > > > > [ 202.419397] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x72/0xdc
> > > > > > > > > [ 202.424409] RIP: 0033:0x7fd11291ea3d
> > > > > > > > > [ 202.427967] Code: 5b 41 5c c3 66 0f 1f 84 00 00 00 00 00 f3 0f 1e fa 48 89 f8 48 89 f7 48 89 d6 48 89 ca 4d 89 c2 4d 89 c8 4c 8b 4c 24 08 0f 05 <48> 3d 01 f0 ff ff 73 01 c3 48 8b 0d c3 a3 0f 00 f7 d8 64 89 01 48
> > > > > > > > > [ 202.446530] RSP: 002b:00007ffffde11368 EFLAGS: 00000246 ORIG_RAX: 0000000000000139
> > > > > > > > > [ 202.454031] RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 00005616a617f210 RCX: 00007fd11291ea3d
> > > > > > > > > [ 202.461106] RDX: 0000000000000000 RSI: 00005616a617fe60 RDI: 000000000000000e
> > > > > > > > > [ 202.468182] RBP: 0000000000040000 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: 0000000000000002
> > > > > > > > > [ 202.475250] R10: 000000000000000e R11: 0000000000000246 R12: 00005616a617fe60
> > > > > > > > > [ 202.482319] R13: 00005616a617f340 R14: 0000000000000000 R15: 00005616a6180650
> > > > > > > > > [ 202.489396] </TASK>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > v2:
> > > > > > > > > - added intel_display_locks_init()
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > v3:
> > > > > > > > > - rebased
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > v4:
> > > > > > > > > - drop intel_display_locks_init()
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > why?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ah... ok, now we have intel_display_driver_early_probe(). I thought you
> > > > > > > were dropping the call from i915_driver.c
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Remaining question for display: do we want to spread the lock
> > > > > > > initialization to each compilation unit? Or should we just keep a
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > static locks_init() { <all the locks here> }
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > the lock init seems a very cheap init that maybe doesn't deserve to be
> > > > > > > spread. Then this patch could just move all the mutexes initialization
> > > > > > > that were left behind.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I still think if only one file uses something, then that file should
> > > > > > include the init for it too, and nobody else should touch it. Including
> > > > > > locks. Ideally, they would be stowed away in allocated opaque structs
> > > > > > that can't even be accessed (or initialized) by anyone else.
> > > > >
> > > > > so... this version of the patch? We will need to spread the mutexes
> > > > > around then.
> > > >
> > > > Do we have an agreement here?
> > > > I'm also in favor of init all variables in the only file that touches it.
> > > >
> > > > The other mutexes can be moved gradually.
> > >
> > > I think we all agree here. Also I believe it can start with this and
> > > later do the rest of the clean up.
> > >
> > > Probably change the commit message to remove the Xe, which is still out
> > > of the tree?
> >
> > If there is no other changes, I can do that when applying.
>
> - no mention of xe in the commit message
> - please move the init() in intel_dkl_phy.h as the first function.
> - send it again, no change while applying
>
> With that,
>
> Reviewed-by: Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@xxxxxxxxx>
Thank you.
Done: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/533128/?series=116325&rev=4
Waiting CI to merge it.
>
> Lucas De Marchi
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Lucas De Marchi
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > BR,
> > > > > > Jani.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center
> > > >
> >
