[Intel-gfx] RFC: i915 arch changes to better support new chipsets
jbarnes at virtuousgeek.org
Tue Mar 20 21:13:47 CET 2012
On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 19:43:04 +0100
Daniel Vetter <daniel at ffwll.ch> wrote:
> > new, range specific i915_read/write routines, e.g. i915_read_gt,
> > i915_read_display to make forcewake and register block moves easier
> > to handle
> I'm not convinced whether this is a great idea if applied all over the
> code. For specific cases where a block moves it's imo better to just add a
> mmio base for that (like we're doing with the ring ctrl regs, which move
> around quite a bit over the various rings and generations). Obviously
> adding a small helper is good, but imo we should name it a bit more
> specific (if possible).
So the problem with VLV is that it has a CedarTrail like display (so
some new registers, lots of moved bits, etc) but moved to 0x180000.
Not everything has moved, just enough to be painful. For example, the
PLLs and some interrupt regs are still in the low range, but pipe &
display plane regs have moved. So it's not as simple as doing a single
offset and applying it everywhere. We need to only apply it for
certain regs, which means touching a bunch of read/write accesses that
don't already use a wrapper. And for the ones that use a wrapper, like
PIPECONF, we'd need a dev_priv->display_mmio_offset or something?
I'm not happy with any solution here, but definitely don't want to
upstream my current hack (a new IS_DISPLAYREG() check in read/write
that adds the offset if needed).
> > I'm open to suggestions on how to fix i915_reg.h; it's becoming quite a
> > beast. Our goal to be to make it easy to add new definitions while
> > also making it easy to not accidentally use old an incorrect
> > definitions on a new platform.
> Close your eyes and just keep on adding gunk. Imo i915_reg.h is pretty
> much a write-once file, and cscope can still keep up with the definitions.
> So not a pain point for me.
> > Then obviously within those files there's lots of room for improvement,
> > for example in i9xx mode setting we still have some pretty massive
> > functions that need to be split (I have patches to do that).
> > Thoughts? It may also make sense to split some of our port specific
> > files where they differ enough from previous platforms. E.g. g4x DP vs
> > ironlake+...
> I've just talked about this a bit with Eugeni in the context of Haswell,
> and I think we might want to hold of for that code until we move output
> stuff all over the place.
Yeah I don't want to make HSW any harder than necessary; we can put off
Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the Intel-gfx