[PATCH v3] drm/i915/mtl: enable local stolen memory
Iddamsetty, Aravind
aravind.iddamsetty at intel.com
Wed Sep 28 04:59:06 UTC 2022
On 28-09-2022 03:52, Matt Roper wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 12:14:24AM +0530, Aravind Iddamsetty wrote:
>> As an integrated GPU, MTL does not have local memory and
>> HAS_LMEM() returns false. However the platform's stolen memory
>> is presented via BAR2 (i.e., the BAR we traditionally consider
>> to be the LMEM BAR) and should be managed by the driver the same
>> way that local memory is on dgpu platforms (which includes
>> setting the "lmem" bit on page table entries). We use the term
>> "local stolen memory" to refer to this model.
>>
>> v2:
>> 1. dropped is_dsm_invalid, updated valid_stolen_size check from Lucas
>> (Jani, Lucas)
>> 2. drop lmembar_is_igpu_stolen
>> 3. revert to referring GFXMEM_BAR as GEN12_LMEM_BAR (Lucas)
>>
>> v3:(Jani)
>> 1. rename get_mtl_gms_size to mtl_get_gms_size
>> 2. define register for MMIO address
>>
>> Cc: Matt Roper <matthew.d.roper at intel.com>
>> Cc: Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi at intel.com>
>> Cc: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula at linux.intel.com>
>>
>
> Since this stuff is somewhat hard to find documentation on, you might
> want to include a bspec page number or two here.
>
> Bspec: 63830
>
> seems like a useful one for reference at least.
sure will add these references.
>
>> Signed-off-by: CQ Tang <cq.tang at intel.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Aravind Iddamsetty <aravind.iddamsetty at intel.com>
>> Original-author: CQ Tang
>> ---
>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_stolen.c | 88 ++++++++++++++++++----
>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_ggtt.c | 2 +-
>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h | 3 +
>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h | 5 ++
>> 4 files changed, 81 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_stolen.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_stolen.c
>> index c5a4035c99cd..0eb66c55bbf3 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_stolen.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_stolen.c
>> @@ -77,9 +77,9 @@ void i915_gem_stolen_remove_node(struct drm_i915_private *i915,
>> mutex_unlock(&i915->mm.stolen_lock);
>> }
>>
>> -static bool valid_stolen_size(struct resource *dsm)
>> +static bool valid_stolen_size(struct drm_i915_private *i915, struct resource *dsm)
>> {
>> - return dsm->start != 0 && dsm->end > dsm->start;
>> + return (dsm->start != 0 || HAS_BAR2_SMEM_STOLEN(i915)) && dsm->end > dsm->start;
>> }
>>
>> static int adjust_stolen(struct drm_i915_private *i915,
>> @@ -88,7 +88,7 @@ static int adjust_stolen(struct drm_i915_private *i915,
>> struct i915_ggtt *ggtt = to_gt(i915)->ggtt;
>> struct intel_uncore *uncore = ggtt->vm.gt->uncore;
>>
>> - if (!valid_stolen_size(dsm))
>> + if (!valid_stolen_size(i915, dsm))
>> return -EINVAL;
>>
>> /*
>> @@ -135,7 +135,7 @@ static int adjust_stolen(struct drm_i915_private *i915,
>> }
>> }
>>
>> - if (!valid_stolen_size(dsm))
>> + if (!valid_stolen_size(i915, dsm))
>> return -EINVAL;
>>
>> return 0;
>> @@ -148,9 +148,10 @@ static int request_smem_stolen(struct drm_i915_private *i915,
>>
>> /*
>> * With stolen lmem, we don't need to request system memory for the
>> - * address range since it's local to the gpu.
>> + * address range since it's local to the gpu and in some IGFX devices
>> + * BAR2 is exposed as stolen
>
> Minor nitpick: this sentence is a bit hard to read/understand. I'd
> leave the original sentence as is and add a separate sentence explaining
> the situation for igpu platforms with stolen memory exposed through
> BAR2.
ok.
>
>> */
>> - if (HAS_LMEM(i915))
>> + if (HAS_LMEM(i915) || HAS_BAR2_SMEM_STOLEN(i915))
>> return 0;
>>
>> /*
>> @@ -385,8 +386,6 @@ static void icl_get_stolen_reserved(struct drm_i915_private *i915,
>>
>> drm_dbg(&i915->drm, "GEN6_STOLEN_RESERVED = 0x%016llx\n", reg_val);
>>
>> - *base = reg_val & GEN11_STOLEN_RESERVED_ADDR_MASK;
>> -
>> switch (reg_val & GEN8_STOLEN_RESERVED_SIZE_MASK) {
>> case GEN8_STOLEN_RESERVED_1M:
>> *size = 1024 * 1024;
>> @@ -404,6 +403,12 @@ static void icl_get_stolen_reserved(struct drm_i915_private *i915,
>> *size = 8 * 1024 * 1024;
>> MISSING_CASE(reg_val & GEN8_STOLEN_RESERVED_SIZE_MASK);
>> }
>> +
>> + if (HAS_BAR2_SMEM_STOLEN(i915))
>> + /* the base is initialized to stolen top so subtract size to get base */
>> + *base -= *size;
>> + else
>> + *base = reg_val & GEN11_STOLEN_RESERVED_ADDR_MASK;
>> }
>>
>> /*
>> @@ -833,6 +838,34 @@ static const struct intel_memory_region_ops i915_region_stolen_lmem_ops = {
>> .init_object = _i915_gem_object_stolen_init,
>> };
>>
>> +static int mtl_get_gms_size(struct intel_uncore *uncore)
>> +{
>> + u16 ggc, gms;
>> +
>> + ggc = intel_uncore_read16(uncore, GGC);
>> +
>> + /* check GGMS, should be fixed 0x3 (8MB) */
>> + if ((ggc & GGMS_MASK) != GGMS_MASK)
>> + return -EIO;
>> +
>> + /* return valid GMS value, -EIO if invalid */
>> + gms = (ggc & GMS_MASK) >> GMS_SHIFT;
>
> It's better to write this as
>
> gms = REG_FIELD_GET(GMS_MASK, ggc);
>
> You can also eliminate the definition of GMS_SHIFT with that.
>
>> + switch (gms) {
>> + case 0x0 ... 0x10:
>
> Shouldn't this just be 0x0 ... 0x4?
agree thanks for catching this.
>
>> + return gms * 32;
>> + case 0x20:
>> + return 1024;
>> + case 0x30:
>> + return 1536;
>> + case 0x40:
>> + return 2048;
>
> I don't see 0x20, 0x30, or 0x40 listed as valid values in the bspec
> anymore.yes this is missing too.
>
>
>> + case 0xf0 ... 0xfe:
>> + return (gms - 0xf0 + 1) * 4;
>> + default:
>
> You might want to add a MISSING_CASE(gms) since this isn't supposed to
> be able to happen, but if it does, we'd like to see which invalid value
> we actually received.
ok.
>
>> + return -EIO;
>> + }
>> +}
>> +
>> struct intel_memory_region *
>> i915_gem_stolen_lmem_setup(struct drm_i915_private *i915, u16 type,
>> u16 instance)
>> @@ -843,6 +876,7 @@ i915_gem_stolen_lmem_setup(struct drm_i915_private *i915, u16 type,
>> struct intel_memory_region *mem;
>> resource_size_t io_start, io_size;
>> resource_size_t min_page_size;
>> + int ret;
>>
>> if (WARN_ON_ONCE(instance))
>> return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV);
>> @@ -850,12 +884,8 @@ i915_gem_stolen_lmem_setup(struct drm_i915_private *i915, u16 type,
>> if (!i915_pci_resource_valid(pdev, GEN12_LMEM_BAR))
>> return ERR_PTR(-ENXIO);
>>
>> - /* Use DSM base address instead for stolen memory */
>> - dsm_base = intel_uncore_read64(uncore, GEN12_DSMBASE) & GEN12_BDSM_MASK;
>> - if (IS_DG1(uncore->i915)) {
>> + if (HAS_BAR2_SMEM_STOLEN(i915) || IS_DG1(i915)) {
>> lmem_size = pci_resource_len(pdev, GEN12_LMEM_BAR);
>> - if (WARN_ON(lmem_size < dsm_base))
>> - return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV);
>> } else {
>> resource_size_t lmem_range;
>>
>> @@ -864,13 +894,39 @@ i915_gem_stolen_lmem_setup(struct drm_i915_private *i915, u16 type,
>> lmem_size *= SZ_1G;
>> }
>>
>> - dsm_size = lmem_size - dsm_base;
>> - if (pci_resource_len(pdev, GEN12_LMEM_BAR) < lmem_size) {
>> + if (HAS_BAR2_SMEM_STOLEN(i915)) {
>> + /*
>> + * MTL dsm size is in GGC register, not the bar size.
>> + * also MTL uses offset to DSMBASE in ptes, so i915
>> + * uses dsm_base = 0 to setup stolen region.
>> + */
>> + ret = mtl_get_gms_size(uncore);
>> + if (ret < 0) {
>> + drm_err(&i915->drm, "invalid MTL GGC register setting\n");
>> + return ERR_PTR(ret);
>> + }
>> +
>> + dsm_base = 0;
>> + dsm_size = (resource_size_t)(ret * SZ_1M);
>> +
>> + GEM_BUG_ON(pci_resource_len(pdev, GEN12_LMEM_BAR) != 256 * SZ_1M);
>
> You could simplify to just SZ_256M here. Also SZ_8M for some of the
> other spots below.
will do it.
Thanks,
Aravind.
>
>
> Matt
>
>> + GEM_BUG_ON((dsm_size + 8 * SZ_1M) > lmem_size);
>> + } else {
>> + /* Use DSM base address instead for stolen memory */
>> + dsm_base = intel_uncore_read64(uncore, GEN12_DSMBASE);
>> + if (WARN_ON(lmem_size < dsm_base))
>> + return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV);
>> + dsm_size = lmem_size - dsm_base;
>> + }
>> +
>> + io_size = dsm_size;
>> + if (pci_resource_len(pdev, GEN12_LMEM_BAR) < dsm_size) {
>> io_start = 0;
>> io_size = 0;
>> + } else if (HAS_BAR2_SMEM_STOLEN(i915)) {
>> + io_start = pci_resource_start(pdev, GEN12_LMEM_BAR) + 8 * SZ_1M;
>> } else {
>> io_start = pci_resource_start(pdev, GEN12_LMEM_BAR) + dsm_base;
>> - io_size = dsm_size;
>> }
>>
>> min_page_size = HAS_64K_PAGES(i915) ? I915_GTT_PAGE_SIZE_64K :
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_ggtt.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_ggtt.c
>> index 30cf5c3369d9..b31fe0fb013f 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_ggtt.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_ggtt.c
>> @@ -931,7 +931,7 @@ static int gen8_gmch_probe(struct i915_ggtt *ggtt)
>> unsigned int size;
>> u16 snb_gmch_ctl;
>>
>> - if (!HAS_LMEM(i915)) {
>> + if (!HAS_LMEM(i915) && !HAS_BAR2_SMEM_STOLEN(i915)) {
>> if (!i915_pci_resource_valid(pdev, GTT_APERTURE_BAR))
>> return -ENXIO;
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
>> index d830d52ded5d..b33ba0d49bbd 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
>> @@ -975,6 +975,9 @@ IS_SUBPLATFORM(const struct drm_i915_private *i915,
>>
>> #define HAS_ONE_EU_PER_FUSE_BIT(i915) (INTEL_INFO(i915)->has_one_eu_per_fuse_bit)
>>
>> +#define HAS_BAR2_SMEM_STOLEN(i915) (!HAS_LMEM(i915) && \
>> + GRAPHICS_VER_FULL(i915) >= IP_VER(12, 70))
>> +
>> /* intel_device_info.c */
>> static inline struct intel_device_info *
>> mkwrite_device_info(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h
>> index 5003a5ffbc6a..3ace2d6b4961 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h
>> @@ -7967,6 +7967,11 @@ enum skl_power_gate {
>> _ICL_PIPE_DSS_CTL2_PB, \
>> _ICL_PIPE_DSS_CTL2_PC)
>>
>> +#define GGC _MMIO(0x108040)
>> +#define GMS_MASK REG_GENMASK(15, 8)
>> +#define GMS_SHIFT 8
>> +#define GGMS_MASK REG_GENMASK(7, 6)
>> +
>> #define GEN12_GSMBASE _MMIO(0x108100)
>> #define GEN12_DSMBASE _MMIO(0x1080C0)
>> #define GEN12_BDSM_MASK REG_GENMASK64(63, 20)
>> --
>> 2.25.1
>>
>
More information about the dri-devel
mailing list