[RFC PATCH v2 10/17] WIP: gpu: host1x: Add no-recovery mode

[Dmitry Osipenko]

12.09.2020 01:11, Mikko Perttunen пишет:
> On 9/11/20 7:40 PM, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>> 05.09.2020 13:34, Mikko Perttunen пишет:
>>> +    } else {
>>> +        struct host1x_job *failed_job = job;
>>> +
>>> +        host1x_job_dump(dev, job);
>>> +
>>> +        host1x_syncpt_set_locked(job->syncpt);
>>> +        failed_job->cancelled = true;
>>> +
>>> +        list_for_each_entry_continue(job, &cdma->sync_queue, list) {
>>> +            unsigned int i;
>>> +
>>> +            if (job->syncpt != failed_job->syncpt)
>>> +                continue;
>>> +
>>> +            for (i = 0; i < job->num_slots; i++) {
>>> +                unsigned int slot = (job->first_get/8 + i) %
>>> +                            HOST1X_PUSHBUFFER_SLOTS;
>>> +                u32 *mapped = cdma->push_buffer.mapped;
>>> +
>>> +                mapped[2*slot+0] = 0x1bad0000;
>>> +                mapped[2*slot+1] = 0x1bad0000;
>>
>> The 0x1bad0000 is a valid memory address on Tegra20.
>>
>> The 0x60000000 is invalid phys address for all hardware generations.
>> It's used by grate-kernel [1] and VDE driver [2]. Note that the 0x6 <<
>> 28 is also invalid Host1x opcode, while 0x1 should break CDMA parser
>> during of PB debug-dumping.
>>
>> [1]
>> https://github.com/grate-driver/linux/blob/master/drivers/gpu/drm/tegra/gem.h#L16
>>
>>
>> [2]
>> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.9-rc4/source/drivers/staging/media/tegra-vde/iommu.c#L99
>>
>>
>> The VDE driver reserves the trapping IOVA addresses, I assume the Host1x
>> driver should do the same.
>>
> 
> The 0x1bad0000's are not intended to be memory addresses, they are NOOP
> opcodes (INCR of 0 words to offset 0xbad). I'll fix this to use proper
> functions to construct the opcodes and add some comments. These need to
> be NOOP opcodes so the command parser skips over these "cancelled" jobs
> when the channel is resumed.
> 
> BTW, 0x60000000 is valid on Tegra194 and later.

At a quick glance it looked like a memory address :)

I'm now taking a closer look at this patch and it raises some more
questions, like for example by looking at the "On job timeout, we stop
the channel, NOP all future jobs on the channel using the same syncpoint
..." through the prism of grate-kernel experience, I'm not sure how it
could co-exist with the drm-scheduler and why it's needed at all. But I
think we need a feature-complete version (at least a rough version), so
that we could start the testing, and then it should be easier to review
and discuss such things.