<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">> Am 09.11.2017 um 11:53 schrieb Piotr Redlewski: > > On Thu, Nov 09, 2017 at 11:09:42AM +0100, Christian König wrote: > >> Am 09.11.2017 um 10:54 schrieb Piotr Redlewski: > >>> On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 06:54:18PM -0500, Alex Deucher wrote: > >>>> On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 5:38 PM, Piotr Redlewski <predlewski at <a href="http://gmail.com">gmail.com</a>> wrote: > >>>>> Hi, > >>>>> > >>>>> Following series implements UVD support for SI in amdgpu driver. Code is based > >>>>> on CIK's UVD support in amdgpu and SI's UVD support in radeon drivers. To work, > >>>>> it requires tahiti uvd firmware with added header - I've created simple script > >>>>> to produce exactly this, so if anyone is interested it can be found here: > >>>>> <a href="https://gist.github.com/anonymous/6d974a970340f7f64b6fcc4f95267e43">https://gist.github.com/anonymous/6d974a970340f7f64b6fcc4f95267e43</a> > >>>>> > >>>>> Code is based on amd-staging-drm-next branch in Alex's tree. After applying > >>>>> these patches, uvd boots up and seems to work ok. I've tested it with vdpauinfo > >>>>> and mpv. > >>>>> > >>>>> Some comments/issues for the patches: > >>>>> 1. To make uvd work, I had to bring back fb location programming. Using location > >>>>> programmed by vbios, vram location is not available for uvd mc (at least on my > >>>>> machine) due to too wide address. Starting address is 40-bit long for fb, but > >>>>> uvd mc supports only 32-bits (judging by comments in amdgpu code and actual code > >>>>> in radeon driver) > >>>> Something else must be going on. The vram location is irrelevant with > >>>> respect to the limitations of UVD. I think the limitations with UVD > >>>> are more to do with the location of the active buffers relative to > >>>> each other rather than the absolute location of some aperture in the > >>>> GPU's address space. CI has the same limitation as I recall so there > >>>> is probably a bug somewhere. Windows has used the fb location as set > >>>> by the vbios since evergreen, so it definitely should work. > >>>> > >>> If this is the case, then there must be something missing in UVD mc controller > >>> programming. When using vbios, I get following location: > >>> amdgpu 0000:01:00.0: VRAM: 2048M 0x000000F400000000 - 0x000000F47FFFFFFF (2048M used) > >>> > >>> When UVD bo is created, it starts at address 0xf400243000 and this value is used > >>> for programming UVD mc offsets. Programming is done in the following way: > >>> addr = (adev->uvd.gpu_addr + AMDGPU_UVD_FIRMWARE_OFFSET) >> 3; > >>> WREG32(mmUVD_VCPU_CACHE_OFFSET0, addr); > >>> > >>> Because address of the bo is wider than 32-bit, this won't work. It would be the > >>> same if UVD bo would be created at the beginning of the VRAM. > >>> > >>> Any ideas how to handle this? > >> Are you programming UVD_LMI_EXT40_ADDR? > >> > >> But I'm not sure if we ever handled that correctly in the SI code. > > Yes, I do it exactly the same as it is done in radeon (and CIK in amdgpu): > > /* bits 32-39 */ > > addr = (adev->uvd.gpu_addr >> 32) & 0xFF; > > WREG32(mmUVD_LMI_EXT40_ADDR, addr | (0x9 << 16) | (0x1 << 31)); > > Ok, I've checked the firmware in the meantime and found that we never > released firmware which supports the full 40bit addressing. > > That's why this will never work correctly. Going to check if we can get > updated firmware out of the door.Hi Christian, Did you manage to publish the updated firmware? I can't see it in the linux-firmware tree. Thanks, Federico<div> </div> > Regards, > Christian. > > > > > Regards, > > Piotr </div></div>