[Intel-gfx] [PATCH v4] drm/i915/selftest/gsc: Ensure GSC Proxy init completes before selftests

[Teres Alexis, Alan Previn]

On Wed, 2023-07-12 at 10:19 +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> On 11/07/2023 23:02, Alan Previn wrote:
> > On MTL, if the GSC Proxy init flows haven't completed, submissions to the
> > GSC engine will fail. Those init flows are dependent on the mei's
> > gsc_proxy component that is loaded in parallel with i915 and a
> > worker that could potentially start after i915 driver init is done.
> > 
> > That said, all subsytems that access the GSC engine today does check
> > for such init flow completion before using the GSC engine. However,
> > selftests currently don't wait on anything before starting.
> > 
> > 
> > 
alan:snip

> > +	/*
> > +	 * The gsc proxy component depends on the kernel component driver load ordering
> > +	 * and in corner cases (the first time after an IFWI flash), init-completion
> > +	 * firmware flows take longer.
> > +	 */
> > +	unsigned long timeout_ms = 8000;
> > +
> > +	if (need_to_wait &&
> > +	    (wait_for(intel_gsc_uc_fw_proxy_init_done(&i915->media_gt->uc.gsc, true),
> > +	    timeout_ms)))
> > +		pr_info(DRIVER_NAME "Timed out waiting for gsc_proxy_completion!\n");
> 
> Would it make sense to error out here? Or at least upgrade to pr_warn or 
> something?
alan: agree on pr_warn (especially since need_for_wait being true and we tried for 8 secs - this should never happen).

> 
> I didn't quite understand the points Daniele raised about engine loops 
> and resets - in my mind GSC engine is this special thing exercised for 
> highly specialized operations and not touched in random for_each_engine 
> loop tests, but I also did not really look so might be totally wrong.

alan: after consulting with Daniele further, the concern in the case of
having gsc-proxy-init mid-execution while other selttests
are running (when thinking of tests that have nothing to do with GSC
but has indirect effect like memory-pressure, engine-resets,
etc) is that the proxy-init will bail-out print an error but
that would result in CI reporting a false-negative. We can't skip
that error since CONFIG_INTEL_MEI_GSC_PROXY tells us that the kernel
owner wants GSC-PROXY working.

> 
> In any case, v4 reads clear - no confusing comments and not 
> over-engineered so is acceptable to me.
> 
alan: thanks Tvrtko.


> P.S. Maybe the check *could* be moved to i915_live_selftests, where hw 
> dependencies conceptually fit better, and maybe i915_perf_selftests 
> would need it too then (?), but it is up to you.
alan: i can do this quickly as a rev5 (after a bit of manual check if perf needs it)

> 
> Maybe even in the array selftests/i915_live_selftests.h if we could add 
> a facility to make unskippable tests and add this one after the sanity 
> check. Which would then achieve the same generalized thing you had in 
> the previous version without needing to add a new array/loop.
alan: i rather not attempt this as part of the current patch but will
consider it as a separate patch if you are okay with that?