On 15.02.2023 01:10, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> On 14/02/2023 23:56, Rob Clark wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 9:32 AM Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> One of the protected ranges was too small (compared to the data we
>>> have downstream). Fix it.
>>>
>>> Fixes: 408434036958 ("drm/msm/a6xx: update/fix CP_PROTECT initialization")
>>> Signed-off-by: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/a6xx_gpu.c | 2 +-
>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/a6xx_gpu.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/a6xx_gpu.c
>>> index 503c750216e6..d6b38bfdb3b4 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/a6xx_gpu.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/a6xx_gpu.c
>>> @@ -690,7 +690,7 @@ static const u32 a6xx_protect[] = {
>>> A6XX_PROTECT_NORDWR(0x00800, 0x0082),
>>> A6XX_PROTECT_NORDWR(0x008a0, 0x0008),
>>> A6XX_PROTECT_NORDWR(0x008ab, 0x0024),
>>> - A6XX_PROTECT_RDONLY(0x008de, 0x00ae),
>>> + A6XX_PROTECT_RDONLY(0x008d0, 0x00bc),
>>
>> Nak, this is intentional, we need userspace to be able to configure
>> the CP counters. Otherwise this would break fdperf, perfetto, etc
>>
>> (although maybe we should comment where we diverge from downstream)
>
> Yes, please. Otherwise it is extremely hard to understand the reason for diversion between the vendor driver and our one.
+1
I am content with dropping this patch from this series, so long
as you leave a clue for others to not scratch their heads on this!
Konrad
>
>>
>> BR,
>> -R
>>
>>> A6XX_PROTECT_NORDWR(0x00900, 0x004d),
>>> A6XX_PROTECT_NORDWR(0x0098d, 0x0272),
>>> A6XX_PROTECT_NORDWR(0x00e00, 0x0001),
>>> --
>>> 2.39.1
>>>
>
