Re: [PATCH 1/2] platform/x86/amd/pmc: Fix fetching DRAM size mechanism

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




On 10/9/2023 8:29 PM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Oct 2023, Shyam Sundar S K wrote:
> 
>> amd_pmc_get_dram_size() is used to get the DRAM size information. But in
>> the current code, mailbox command to get the DRAM size info is sent based
>> on the values of dev->major and dev->minor.
>>
>> But dev->major and dev->minor will have either junk or zero assigned to
>> them until at least once a call to amd_pmc_get_smu_version() is made which
>> ideally populates dev->major and dev->minor.
>>
>> Add a missing amd_pmc_get_smu_version() call to amd_pmc_get_dram_size().
>>
>> Fixes: be8325fb3d8c ("platform/x86/amd: pmc: Get STB DRAM size from PMFW")
>> Suggested-by: Sanket Goswami <Sanket.Goswami@xxxxxxx>
>> Signed-off-by: Shyam Sundar S K <Shyam-sundar.S-k@xxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> based on review-ilpo, can be added on top of recent stb changes
>>
>>  drivers/platform/x86/amd/pmc/pmc.c | 4 ++++
>>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/amd/pmc/pmc.c b/drivers/platform/x86/amd/pmc/pmc.c
>> index 1424c03c1f03..92adf4523736 100644
>> --- a/drivers/platform/x86/amd/pmc/pmc.c
>> +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/amd/pmc/pmc.c
>> @@ -981,6 +981,10 @@ static int amd_pmc_get_dram_size(struct amd_pmc_dev *dev)
>>  {
>>  	int ret;
>>  
>> +	ret = amd_pmc_get_smu_version(dev);
>> +	if (ret)
>> +		return ret;
>> +
>>  	switch (dev->cpu_id) {
>>  	case AMD_CPU_ID_YC:
>>  		if (!(dev->major > 90 || (dev->major == 90 && dev->minor > 39))) {
> 
> Does this really belong here? Correct me if I recall wrong but the reason 
> why amd_pmc_get_smu_version() was not always done during init was that it 
> added noticeable delay to boot? Based on that, I kind of assumed it's 
> generic thing (and a such, unrelated to amd_pmc_get_dram_size()) so why is 
> this call this deep in the call chain? Perhaps amd_pmc_s2d_init() would 
> be more appropriate place for it since you now make the call 
> unconditional anyway for that code path?
> 

Yes you are right. I see a remark from Mario also on the similar
lines. The best thing is, let me go back to our FW team to understand
when do they report dram_size and what is the implication of calling
get_smu_version().

Thanks,
Shyam



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux