On Fri, Nov 15, 2024 at 08:50:01PM +0100, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: > 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. :-) yeap, it is not... this is why we should ensure these functions are not called, liked they were not called before this patch... > > Cheers, > ~Maarten
