Hey,
Den 2024-11-15 kl. 20:06, skrev Rodrigo Vivi:
On Fri, Nov 15, 2024 at 03:21:43PM +0100, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
Hey,
Den 2024-11-14 kl. 17:09, skrev Rodrigo Vivi:
On Thu, Nov 07, 2024 at 11:01:37AM +0100, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
We want to split up GUC init to an alloc and noalloc part to keep the
init path the same for VF and !VF as much as possible.
Everything in vf_guc_init should be done as early as possible, otherwise
VRAM probing becomes impossible.
Signed-off-by: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Link: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/20241105121857.17389-6-maarten.lankhorst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Signed-off-by: Maarten Lankhorst,,, <dev@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_gt_sriov_vf.c | 1 -
drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_guc.c | 17 +++++++++--------
2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_gt_sriov_vf.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_gt_sriov_vf.c
index cca5d57328021..997438047a037 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_gt_sriov_vf.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_gt_sriov_vf.c
@@ -948,7 +948,6 @@ u32 xe_gt_sriov_vf_read32(struct xe_gt *gt, struct xe_reg reg)
struct vf_runtime_reg *rr;
xe_gt_assert(gt, IS_SRIOV_VF(gt_to_xe(gt)));
- xe_gt_assert(gt, gt->sriov.vf.pf_version.major);
xe_gt_assert(gt, !reg.vf);
if (reg.addr == GMD_ID.addr) {
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_guc.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_guc.c
index 7224593c9ce9b..5a050a5379911 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_guc.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_guc.c
@@ -301,6 +301,7 @@ static int xe_guc_realloc_post_hwconfig(struct xe_guc *guc)
static int vf_guc_init(struct xe_guc *guc)
{
+ struct xe_gt *gt = guc_to_gt(guc);
int err;
xe_guc_comm_init_early(guc);
@@ -313,6 +314,14 @@ static int vf_guc_init(struct xe_guc *guc)
if (err)
return err;
+ err = xe_gt_sriov_vf_bootstrap(gt);
+ if (err)
+ return err;
+
+ err = xe_gt_sriov_vf_query_config(gt);
+ if (err)
+ return err;
+
return 0;
}
@@ -753,14 +762,6 @@ static int vf_guc_min_load_for_hwconfig(struct xe_guc *guc)
Cc: Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdeczko@xxxxxxxxx>
as I believe there was a good reason for these functions to be called this early.
This is in fact called slightly earlier than before. It's now called in xe_uc_init instead of xe_uc_init_hwconfig. :-)
Oh! Indeed! one step earlier actually... that name min_for_hwconfig got me confused, I'm sorry.
The only difference that I see now is that this functions are not avoided anymore if xe.force_execlist=1...
We should probably add some skips inside the function? I know I know we likely have many other bugs
if using force_execlists, but let's at least try to avoid introducing more cases...
I don't think it's even possible to use execists in VF mode. :-)
Cheers,
~Maarten
