On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 4:18 PM, Ilia Mirkin <imirkin@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 9:46 AM, Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 08:54:05AM -0400, Ilia Mirkin wrote: >>> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 7:47 AM, Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> > /* do magic */ >>> > nvif_mask(&device->object, 0x088488, (1 << 25), (1 << 25)); >>> > >>> > Wow, that *is* inscrutable magic. I gave up trying to convince myself >>> > that this turns into pci_write_config_word() eventually. >>> > >>> > 0x88000 is way too big for an offset into PCI config space (it's only >>> > 4096 bytes per device at most), so I don't know what sort of alias it >>> > could be. It doesn't look like a MMCONFIG address (which the driver >>> > shouldn't be using directly anyway). >>> >>> 0x88000 is an offset into one of the BARs. At this offset is a mirror >>> of the PCI config space (or you could say that the PCI config space is >>> a mirror of these registers... we'll never know). The "magic" comment >>> probably refers to flipping the bit though, since it's the "make it >>> work" bit. >> >> OK, that makes sense. If you made a quirk, you might want to use a >> config access, since using MMIO means you depend on the BAR having >> been assigned space. Often the BIOS will have assigned the BAR, but >> there's no requirement for it to do so. > > Oh yeah, we'd definitely do it via the PCI config space. Mapping the > bar in early pci setup doesn't seem like the wise move. I was just > mentioning the 88000 thing so that the code made sense. I guess that > didn't go to plan... > >>> >> This works for runtime pm resume, since the device was originally >>> >> there and we just have to make sure the underlying device agrees with >>> >> it, but when it's missing on boot, we have to convince linux that it >>> >> exists, bind a driver, etc. >>> >> >>> >> What's the best way of going about doing that? >>> > >>> > If you make an early quirk for the GPU device, we'll run the quirk >>> > while enumerating it. If it can enable the audio device, and if the >>> > audio device is at a higher device number, the PCI core should try to >>> > enumerate it later. But there might be wrinkles if setting the bit >>> > turns a single-function device into a multi-function one, because the >>> > core might have already decided it didn't need to scan for more >>> > functions. DECLARE_PCI_FIXUP_CLASS_EARLY() is the place to start. >>> >>> I thought about this type of approach but I have two concerns: >>> - We can't just do this willy-nilly on *any* NVIDIA GPU, only on >>> "new" ones. The definition of "new" here, of course, is like 2010, and >>> there have been a lot of chips released since then. Each chip is >>> allocated a group of 0x20 or 0x40 PCI device ids, but it'll still be a >>> lot of code. Do you really want this in drivers/pci/quirks.c? >> >> It sounds like this is basically a workaround for a BIOS bug -- it >> forgot to enable the audio device. If you complain to the vendor, >> they might eventually fix it and you won't need to add new devices. > > I was thinking of just blanket applying it to all GT215+ chips after > we do some spot checks for safety -- the chip can be determined based > on PCI id (http://envytools.readthedocs.io/en/latest/hw/pciid.html). > There are more GPU pci ids than there are users of nouveau... and the > failure has nothing to do with the pci id but rather with the platform > and/or vbios author. It's a somewhat widespread problem among laptops > and still happens with new ones. > > I suspect it was treated as a BIOS feature rather than a bug -- you > get a second audio device and confuse the user about which one is the > "real audio". There are even some laptops which make the audio > function appear based on HDMI cable presence at boot (and I think make > it appear/disappear dynamically in Windows). > >> >>> - This fixup will be applied no matter what. I wonder if that's an OK >>> thing to do -- feels like this sort of thing should be scoped to the >>> driver. I was assuming there'd be some magic hotplug function that >>> could be called. I suppose we could condition the quirk on >>> CONFIG_NOUVEAU being built (into the kernel or otherwise), but that's >>> still a coarse tool given that distros enable everything. >> >> You can have conditions in your fixup -- only certain devices, certain >> platforms, etc. >> >>> How would I find out about the single-function vs multi-function >>> issue? Is there a separate bit in the pci config that indicates a >>> multi-function device, or do you just mean it's an implementation >>> issue in the pci core which might not handle a quirk that adds a >>> second device? >> >> There's a bit in the header that tells us whether it's a multifunction >> device. See pci_setup_device(), where it sets dev->multifunction. >> That happens before we run early quirks, so if enabling the audio >> device in the quirk changed the bit, we'd have a problem. But you'll >> have to experiment. It could be that the GPU identifies as a >> multifunction device even if the audio device is disabled. > > OK, thanks for all the info! I'll try to work something up and get it > tested by affected users. > With the bit 25 in 0x488, we can disable/enable the Multifunction reporting bit 23 in 0xc, which means if we disable the multifunction bit in 0x488, the GPU itself doesn't tell the system it is one either. So the write to 0x488 is actually required to get the GPU into a state, where it actually reports to be a multifunction device. > Cheers, > > -ilia > _______________________________________________ > dri-devel mailing list > dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
