[PATCH v3 2/2] radeon: use memcpy_to/fromio for UVD fw upload

[Chen Li]

On Fri, 04 Jun 2021 16:31:28 +0800,
Christian König wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Am 04.06.21 um 10:28 schrieb Chen Li:
> > On Fri, 04 Jun 2021 16:08:26 +0800,
> > Christian König wrote:
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Am 04.06.21 um 09:53 schrieb Chen Li:
> >>> I met a gpu addr bug recently and the kernel log
> >>> tells me the pc is memcpy/memset and link register is
> >>> radeon_uvd_resume.
> >>> 
> >>> As we know, in some architectures, optimized memcpy/memset
> >>> may not work well on device memory. Trival memcpy_toio/memset_io
> >>> can fix this problem.
> >>> 
> >>> BTW, amdgpu has already done it in:
> >>> commit ba0b2275a678 ("drm/amdgpu: use memcpy_to/fromio for UVD fw upload"),
> >>> that's why it has no this issue on the same gpu and platform.
> >>> 
> >>> Signed-off-by: Chen Li <chenli at uniontech.com>
> >>> ---
> >>>    drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_uvd.c | 6 ++++--
> >>>    1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >>> 
> >>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_uvd.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_uvd.c
> >>> index 85a1f2c31749..55abf9a9623b 100644
> >>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_uvd.c
> >>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_uvd.c
> >>> @@ -288,7 +288,9 @@ int radeon_uvd_resume(struct radeon_device *rdev)
> >>>    	if (rdev->uvd.vcpu_bo == NULL)
> >>>    		return -EINVAL;
> >>>    -	memcpy(rdev->uvd.cpu_addr, rdev->uvd_fw->data, rdev->uvd_fw->size);
> >>> +	memcpy_toio((void __iomem *)rdev->uvd.cpu_addr,
> >>> +				rdev->uvd_fw->data,
> >>> +				rdev->uvd_fw->size);
> >> The coding style still looks wrong here, e.g. it is indented to far to the right
> >> and data/size can be on one line.
> > It's really werid that the patch before being replyed has not this coding style issue and do always indent the same with previous memcpy(in all of v1, v2 and v3),
> > you can check at https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpatchwork.kernel.org%2Fproject%2Fdri-devel%2Fpatch%2F87im2ufhyz.wl-chenli%40uniontech.com%2F&data=04%7C01%7Cchristian.koenig%40amd.com%7C3faf061c19b54a68e72508d92732cd5e%7C3dd8961fe4884e608e11a82d994e183d%7C0%7C0%7C637583921450406148%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=b0726ORwyeLQsKVzqjfZEMaU4Vi543szpFYoHekPMIU%3D&reserved=0 Cannot figure out what happened, sorry.
> > 
> > I'll take merge them in single line in the next series, thanks.
> 
> It's not much of an issue, just make sure that checkpatch.pl doesn't complain.

Yes, have already done checkpatch in all these series.
> 
> Christian.
> 
> >> Apart from that the patch is Reviewed-by: Christian König
> >> <christian.koenig at amd.com>
> >> 
> >> Regards,
> >> Christian.
> >> 
> >>>      	size = radeon_bo_size(rdev->uvd.vcpu_bo);
> >>>    	size -= rdev->uvd_fw->size;
> >>> @@ -296,7 +298,7 @@ int radeon_uvd_resume(struct radeon_device *rdev)
> >>>    	ptr = rdev->uvd.cpu_addr;
> >>>    	ptr += rdev->uvd_fw->size;
> >>>    -	memset(ptr, 0, size);
> >>> +	memset_io((void __iomem *)ptr, 0, size);
> >>>      	return 0;
> >>>    }
> >> 
> >> 
> > 
> 
> 
>