Den 13.01.2017 kl. 12:57, skrev gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
This is a note to let you know that I've just added the patch titled
drm/i915/gen9: Fix PCODE polling during CDCLK change notification
to the 4.9-stable tree which can be found at:
http://www.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git;a=summary
The filename of the patch is:
drm-i915-gen9-fix-pcode-polling-during-cdclk-change-notification.patch
and it can be found in the queue-4.9 subdirectory.
If you, or anyone else, feels it should not be added to the stable tree,
please let <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> know about it.
From 2c7d0602c815277f7cb7c932b091288710d8aba7 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Imre Deak <imre.deak@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2016 18:27:37 +0200
Subject: drm/i915/gen9: Fix PCODE polling during CDCLK change notification
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Imre Deak <imre.deak@xxxxxxxxx>
commit 2c7d0602c815277f7cb7c932b091288710d8aba7 upstream.
commit 848496e5902833600f7992f4faa82dc1546051ba
Author: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed Jul 13 16:32:03 2016 +0300
drm/i915: Wait up to 3ms for the pcu to ack the cdclk change request on SKL
increased the timeout to match the spec, but we still see a timeout on
at least one SKL. A CDCLK change request following the failed one will
succeed nevertheless.
I could reproduce this problem easily by running kms_pipe_crc_basic in a
loop. In all failure cases _wait_for() was pre-empted for >3ms and so in
the worst case - when the pre-emption happened right after calculating
timeout__ in _wait_for() - we called skl_cdclk_wait_for_pcu_ready() only
once which failed and so _wait_for() timed out. As opposed to this the
spec says to keep retrying the request for at most a 3ms period.
To fix this send the first request explicitly to guarantee that there is
3ms between the first and last request. Though this matches the spec, I
noticed that in rare cases this can still time out if we sent only a few
requests (in the worst case 2) _and_ PCODE is busy for some reason even
after a previous request and a 3ms delay. To work around this retry the
polling with pre-emption disabled to maximize the number of requests.
Also increase the timeout to 10ms to account for interrupts that could
reduce the number of requests. With this change I couldn't trigger
the problem.
v2:
- Use 1ms poll period instead of 10us. (Chris)
v3:
- Poll with pre-emption disabled to increase the number of request
attempts. (Ville, Chris)
- Factor out a helper to poll, it's also needed by the next patch.
v4:
- Pass reply_mask, reply to skl_pcode_request(), instead of assuming the
reply is generic. (Ville)
v5:
- List the request specific timeout values as code comment. (Ville)
v6:
- Try the poll first with preemption enabled.
- Add code comment about first request being queued by PCODE. (Art)
- Add timeout_base_ms argument. (Ville)
v7:
- Clarify code comment about first queued request. (Chris)
Cc: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Art Runyan <arthur.j.runyan@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> # v4.2- : 3b2c171 : drm/i915: Wait up to 3ms
Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> # v4.2-
Fixes: 5d96d8afcfbb ("drm/i915/skl: Deinit/init the display at suspend/resume")
Reference: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=97929
Testcase: igt/kms_pipe_crc_basic/suspend-read-crc-pipe-B
Signed-off-by: Imre Deak <imre.deak@xxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Link: http://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/1480955258-26311-1-git-send-email-imre.deak@xxxxxxxxx
(cherry picked from commit a0b8a1fe34430c3a82258e8cb45f5968bdf31afd)
Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h | 2
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c | 31 ++++----------
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c | 75 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3 files changed, 87 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
@@ -3684,6 +3684,8 @@ extern void intel_display_print_error_st
int sandybridge_pcode_read(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv, u32 mbox, u32 *val);
int sandybridge_pcode_write(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv, u32 mbox, u32 val);
+int skl_pcode_request(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv, u32 mbox, u32 request,
+ u32 reply_mask, u32 reply, int timeout_base_ms);
/* intel_sideband.c */
u32 vlv_punit_read(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv, u32 addr);
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
@@ -6262,36 +6262,25 @@ skl_dpll0_disable(struct drm_i915_privat
dev_priv->cdclk_pll.vco = 0;
}
-static bool skl_cdclk_pcu_ready(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
-{
- int ret;
- u32 val;
-
- /* inform PCU we want to change CDCLK */
- val = SKL_CDCLK_PREPARE_FOR_CHANGE;
- mutex_lock(&dev_priv->rps.hw_lock);
- ret = sandybridge_pcode_read(dev_priv, SKL_PCODE_CDCLK_CONTROL, &val);
- mutex_unlock(&dev_priv->rps.hw_lock);
-
- return ret == 0 && (val & SKL_CDCLK_READY_FOR_CHANGE);
-}
-
-static bool skl_cdclk_wait_for_pcu_ready(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
-{
- return _wait_for(skl_cdclk_pcu_ready(dev_priv), 3000, 10) == 0;
-}
-
static void skl_set_cdclk(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv, int cdclk, int vco)
{
struct drm_device *dev = &dev_priv->drm;
u32 freq_select, pcu_ack;
+ int ret;
WARN_ON((cdclk == 24000) != (vco == 0));
DRM_DEBUG_DRIVER("Changing CDCLK to %d kHz (VCO %d kHz)\n", cdclk, vco);
- if (!skl_cdclk_wait_for_pcu_ready(dev_priv)) {
- DRM_ERROR("failed to inform PCU about cdclk change\n");
+ mutex_lock(&dev_priv->rps.hw_lock);
+ ret = skl_pcode_request(dev_priv, SKL_PCODE_CDCLK_CONTROL,
+ SKL_CDCLK_PREPARE_FOR_CHANGE,
+ SKL_CDCLK_READY_FOR_CHANGE,
+ SKL_CDCLK_READY_FOR_CHANGE, 3);
+ mutex_unlock(&dev_priv->rps.hw_lock);
+ if (ret) {
+ DRM_ERROR("Failed to inform PCU about cdclk change (%d)\n",
+ ret);
return;
}
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c
@@ -7955,6 +7955,81 @@ int sandybridge_pcode_write(struct drm_i
return 0;
}
+static bool skl_pcode_try_request(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv, u32 mbox,
+ u32 request, u32 reply_mask, u32 reply,
+ u32 *status)
+{
+ u32 val = request;
+
+ *status = sandybridge_pcode_read(dev_priv, mbox, &val);
+
+ return *status || ((val & reply_mask) == reply);
+}
+
+/**
+ * skl_pcode_request - send PCODE request until acknowledgment
+ * @dev_priv: device private
+ * @mbox: PCODE mailbox ID the request is targeted for
+ * @request: request ID
+ * @reply_mask: mask used to check for request acknowledgment
+ * @reply: value used to check for request acknowledgment
+ * @timeout_base_ms: timeout for polling with preemption enabled
+ *
+ * Keep resending the @request to @mbox until PCODE acknowledges it, PCODE
+ * reports an error or an overall timeout of @timeout_base_ms+10 ms expires.
+ * The request is acknowledged once the PCODE reply dword equals @reply after
+ * applying @reply_mask. Polling is first attempted with preemption enabled
+ * for @timeout_base_ms and if this times out for another 10 ms with
+ * preemption disabled.
+ *
+ * Returns 0 on success, %-ETIMEDOUT in case of a timeout, <0 in case of some
+ * other error as reported by PCODE.
+ */
+int skl_pcode_request(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv, u32 mbox, u32 request,
+ u32 reply_mask, u32 reply, int timeout_base_ms)
+{
+ u32 status;
+ int ret;
+
+ WARN_ON(!mutex_is_locked(&dev_priv->rps.hw_lock));
+
+#define COND skl_pcode_try_request(dev_priv, mbox, request, reply_mask, reply, \
+ &status)
+
+ /*
+ * Prime the PCODE by doing a request first. Normally it guarantees
+ * that a subsequent request, at most @timeout_base_ms later, succeeds.
+ * _wait_for() doesn't guarantee when its passed condition is evaluated
+ * first, so send the first request explicitly.
+ */
+ if (COND) {
+ ret = 0;
+ goto out;
+ }
+ ret = _wait_for(COND, timeout_base_ms * 1000, 10);
+ if (!ret)
+ goto out;
+
+ /*
+ * The above can time out if the number of requests was low (2 in the
+ * worst case) _and_ PCODE was busy for some reason even after a
+ * (queued) request and @timeout_base_ms delay. As a workaround retry
+ * the poll with preemption disabled to maximize the number of
+ * requests. Increase the timeout from @timeout_base_ms to 50ms to
+ * account for interrupts that could reduce the number of these
+ * requests.
+ */
+ DRM_DEBUG_KMS("PCODE timeout, retrying with preemption disabled\n");
+ WARN_ON_ONCE(timeout_base_ms > 3);
+ preempt_disable();
+ ret = wait_for_atomic(COND, 50);
Hm...
This does not match the upstream commit.
the upstream commit has:
ret = wait_for_atomic(COND, 10);
so 50 in this backport vs 10 in upstream patch
Is that intentional ?
--
Thomas
+ preempt_enable();
+
+out:
+ return ret ? ret : status;
+#undef COND
+}
+
static int byt_gpu_freq(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv, int val)
{
/*
Patches currently in stable-queue which might be from imre.deak@xxxxxxxxx are
queue-4.9/drm-i915-gen9-fix-pcode-polling-during-cdclk-change-notification.patch
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html