On Mon, Aug 12, 2024 at 04:04:22PM -0400, Michael J. Ruhl wrote:
> The Battlemage (BMG) discrete graphics card supports
> the Platform, Monitoring Technology (PMT) feature
> directly on the primary PCI device.
>
> Utilize the PMT callback API to add support for the BMG
> devices.
...
> +#include <linux/bitfield.h>
> +#include <linux/bits.h>
> +#include <linux/cleanup.h>
> +#include <linux/intel_vsec.h>
> +#include <linux/module.h>
> +#include <linux/mutex.h>
> +#include <linux/pci.h>
...
> +#define SOC_BASE 0x280000
> +
> +#define BMG_PMT_BASE 0xDB000
> +#define BMG_DISCOVERY_OFFSET (SOC_BASE + BMG_PMT_BASE)
> +#define BMG_TELEMETRY_BASE 0xE0000
> +#define BMG_TELEMETRY_OFFSET (SOC_BASE + BMG_TELEMETRY_BASE)
This looks like double indirection.
Wouldn't suffix _BASE_OFFSET be better for PMT and TELEMETRY cases?
...
> +#define BMG_DEVICE_ID 0xE2F8
Is this defined in any specification? I mean is the format the same as PCI device ID?
...
> +#define GFX_BAR 0
Do you need a separate definition for this?
...
> +enum record_id {
> + PUNIT,
> + OOBMSM_0,
> + OOBMSM_1
Trailing comma?
> +};
> +
> +enum capability {
> + CRASHLOG,
> + TELEMETRY,
> + WATCHER
Ditto?
> +};
...
> + switch (record_id) {
> + case PUNIT:
> + *index = 0;
> + if (cap_type == TELEMETRY)
> + *offset = PUNIT_TELEMETRY_OFFSET;
> + else
> + *offset = PUNIT_WATCHER_OFFSET;
> + break;
> +
> + case OOBMSM_0:
> + *index = 1;
> + if (cap_type == WATCHER)
> + *offset = OOBMSM_0_WATCHER_OFFSET;
> + break;
> +
> + case OOBMSM_1:
> + *index = 1;
> + if (cap_type == TELEMETRY)
> + *offset = OOBMSM_1_TELEMETRY_OFFSET;
> + break;
default case?
> + }
...
> +static int xe_pmt_telem_read(struct pci_dev *pdev, u32 guid, u64 *data, u32 count)
> +{
> + struct xe_device *xe = pdev_to_xe_device(pdev);
> + void __iomem *telem_addr = xe->mmio.regs + BMG_TELEMETRY_OFFSET;
> + u32 mem_region;
> + u32 offset;
> + int ret;
> +
> + ret = guid_decode(guid, &mem_region, &offset);
> + if (ret)
> + return ret;
> +
> + telem_addr += offset;
> +
> + guard(mutex)(&xe->pmt.lock);
> +
> + /* indicate that we are not at an appropriate power level */
> + if (!xe_pm_runtime_get_if_active(xe))
> + return -ENODATA;
> +
> + /* set SoC re-mapper index register based on GUID memory region */
> + xe_mmio_rmw32(xe->tiles[0].primary_gt, SG_REMAP_INDEX1, SG_REMAP_BITS,
> + FIELD_PREP(SG_REMAP_BITS, mem_region));
> +
> + memcpy_fromio(data, telem_addr, count);
> + ret = count;
> + xe_pm_runtime_put(xe);
Does this have a side effect on count? If yes, a comment, if no, you may return
count directly.
> + return ret;
> +}
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
