On 6/28/2016 2:05 PM, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 27/06/16 17:35, Goel, Akash wrote:
On 6/27/2016 9:16 PM, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 27/06/16 13:16, akash.goel@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
From: Akash Goel <akash.goel@xxxxxxxxx>
So far PM IER/IIR/IMR registers were being used only for Turbo related
interrupts. But interrupts coming from GuC also use the same set.
As a precursor to supporting GuC interrupts, added new low level
routines
so as to allow sharing the programming of PM IER/IIR/IMR registers
between
Turbo & GuC.
Also similar to PM IMR, maintaining a bitmask for PM IER register, to
allow
easy sharing of it between Turbo & GuC without involving a rmw
operation.
Suggested-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Akash Goel <akash.goel@xxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h | 1 +
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c | 55
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h | 6 +++++
3 files changed, 52 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
index 9ef4919..85a7103 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
@@ -1806,6 +1806,7 @@ struct drm_i915_private {
};
u32 gt_irq_mask;
u32 pm_irq_mask;
+ u32 pm_ier_mask;
u32 pm_rps_events;
u32 pipestat_irq_mask[I915_MAX_PIPES];
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c
index 4378a65..7316ab4 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c
@@ -336,14 +336,52 @@ void gen6_disable_pm_irq(struct drm_i915_private
*dev_priv, uint32_t mask)
__gen6_disable_pm_irq(dev_priv, mask);
}
-void gen6_reset_rps_interrupts(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
+void gen6_reset_pm_interrupts(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
+ uint32_t reset_mask)
Kernel prefers u32. It is not that overall i915 is clean in that
respect, but every time maintainers merge patches checkpatch shouts
about it, and more noise tougher it is to spot more important issues. I
would appreciate if u32 was used throughout.
Fine, will use u32.
Thanks!
{
i915_reg_t reg = gen6_pm_iir(dev_priv);
- spin_lock_irq(&dev_priv->irq_lock);
- I915_WRITE(reg, dev_priv->pm_rps_events);
- I915_WRITE(reg, dev_priv->pm_rps_events);
+ assert_spin_locked(&dev_priv->irq_lock);
+
+ I915_WRITE(reg, reset_mask);
+ I915_WRITE(reg, reset_mask);
POSTING_READ(reg);
+}
+
+void gen6_enable_pm_interrupts(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
+ uint32_t enable_mask)
+{
+ uint32_t new_val;
+
+ assert_spin_locked(&dev_priv->irq_lock);
+
+ new_val = dev_priv->pm_ier_mask;
+ new_val |= enable_mask;
+
+ dev_priv->pm_ier_mask = new_val;
+ I915_WRITE(gen6_pm_ier(dev_priv), dev_priv->pm_ier_mask);
+ gen6_enable_pm_irq(dev_priv, enable_mask);
Hm, will this be confusing that we will have gen6_enable_pm_interrupts
and gen6_enable_pm_irq, so extremely similar names and same parameters,
but for different use?
Sorry for using confusing, ambiguous names.
Maybe rename the old one to gen6_unmask_pm_irq and name this one
gen6_enable_pm_irq ? If there is really need to have both. Or add some
kerneldoc explaining which one is used for what?
Can I do like this, keep gen6_enable_pm_interrupts as is and rename
gen6_enable_pm_irq to gen6_unmask_pm_irq.
Similarly also rename gen6_disable_pm_irq to gen6_mask_pm_irq.
Yes for mask/unmask, but I think the suffix really needs to be the same
since it is the same functional family.
Fine, so will rename gen6_enable_pm_interrupts to gen6_enable_pm_irq,
and gen6_enable_pm_irq to gen6_unmask_pm_irq
Best regards
Akash
Regards,
Tvrtko
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
