[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/6] drm/i915: Fix ILK reset wait

[Daniel Vetter]

On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 11:18:44AM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 10:01:27AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 09:30:25AM -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> > > On Mon, 19 May 2014 19:23:23 +0300
> > > ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com wrote:
> > > 
> > > > From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com>
> > > > 
> > > > We should be waiting for the reset bit to clear, not remain set.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.c | 6 ++++--
> > > >  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.c
> > > > index 0e333f2..d79db88 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.c
> > > > @@ -1000,7 +1000,8 @@ static int ironlake_do_reset(struct drm_device *dev)
> > > >  	gdrst &= ~GRDOM_MASK;
> > > >  	I915_WRITE(MCHBAR_MIRROR_BASE + ILK_GDSR,
> > > >  		   gdrst | GRDOM_RENDER | GRDOM_RESET_ENABLE);
> > > > -	ret = wait_for(I915_READ(MCHBAR_MIRROR_BASE + ILK_GDSR) & 0x1, 500);
> > > > +	ret = wait_for((I915_READ(MCHBAR_MIRROR_BASE + ILK_GDSR) &
> > > > +			GRDOM_RESET_ENABLE) == 0, 500);
> > > >  	if (ret)
> > > >  		return ret;
> > > >  
> > > > @@ -1008,7 +1009,8 @@ static int ironlake_do_reset(struct drm_device *dev)
> > > >  	gdrst &= ~GRDOM_MASK;
> > > >  	I915_WRITE(MCHBAR_MIRROR_BASE + ILK_GDSR,
> > > >  		   gdrst | GRDOM_MEDIA | GRDOM_RESET_ENABLE);
> > > > -	return wait_for(I915_READ(MCHBAR_MIRROR_BASE + ILK_GDSR) & 0x1, 500);
> > > > +	return wait_for((I915_READ(MCHBAR_MIRROR_BASE + ILK_GDSR) &
> > > > +			 GRDOM_RESET_ENABLE) == 0, 500);
> > > >  }
> > > >  
> > > >  static int gen6_do_reset(struct drm_device *dev)
> > > 
> > > Arg, I lost the docs on this, but it matches what I remember.
> > > 
> > > Reviewed-by: Jesse Barnes <jbarnes at virtuousgeek.org>
> > 
> > Was this tested on an ilk? I remember writing a similar patch and I didn't
> > apply it due to conflict with reality.
> 
> Yes. My ILK seems happy now. Maybe your ILK barfed on it due to
> specifying invalid reset domains (fixed in 3/6)?

That might indeed explain what I've seen. Both patches applied, thanks.
-Daniel
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
+41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch