[Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: add cherryview specfic forcewake in execlists_elsp_write

[Daniel Vetter]

On Mon, Sep 08, 2014 at 05:14:23PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 08, 2014 at 05:02:43PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 09, 2014 at 07:14:16PM +0530, deepak.s at linux.intel.com wrote:
> > > From: Deepak S <deepak.s at linux.intel.com>
> > > 
> > > In chv, we have two power wells Render & Media. We need to use
> > > corresponsing forcewake count. If we dont follow this we are getting
> > > error "*ERROR*: Timed out waiting for forcewake old ack to clear" due to
> > > multiple entry into __vlv_force_wake_get.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Deepak S <deepak.s at linux.intel.com>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c | 29 +++++++++++++++++++++++++----
> > >  1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c
> > > index bd1b28d..bafd38b 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c
> > > @@ -300,8 +300,18 @@ static void execlists_elsp_write(struct intel_engine_cs *ring,
> > >  	 * Instead, we do the runtime_pm_get/put when creating/destroying requests.
> > >  	 */
> > >  	spin_lock_irqsave(&dev_priv->uncore.lock, flags);
> > > -	if (dev_priv->uncore.forcewake_count++ == 0)
> > > -		dev_priv->uncore.funcs.force_wake_get(dev_priv, FORCEWAKE_ALL);
> > > +	if (IS_CHERRYVIEW(dev_priv->dev)) {
> > > +		if (dev_priv->uncore.fw_rendercount++ == 0)
> > > +			dev_priv->uncore.funcs.force_wake_get(dev_priv,
> > > +							      FORCEWAKE_RENDER);
> > > +		if (dev_priv->uncore.fw_mediacount++ == 0)
> > > +			dev_priv->uncore.funcs.force_wake_get(dev_priv,
> > > +							      FORCEWAKE_MEDIA);
> > 
> > This will wake both wells. Is that needed or should we just pick one
> > based on the ring?
> 
> Also unlike the comment says runtime_pm_get() can't sleep since someone
> must already be holding a reference, othwewise we surely can't go
> writing any registers. So in theory we should be able to call
> gen6_gt_force_wake_get() here, but maybe that would trigger a
> might_sleep() warning. the current force wake code duplication (esp.
> outside intel_uncore.c) is rather unfortunate and I'd like to see it
> killed off. Maybe we just need to pull the rpm get/put outside
> gen6_gt_force_wake_get()? I never really liked hiding it there anyway.

Yeah this is just broken design. And if you look at the other wheel to
track outstanding gpu work (requests) then it's not needed at all.

But I'm not sure what's the priority of the "rework execlists to use
requests" task is and when (if ever that will happen). Jesse is the
arbiter for this stuff anyway, so adding him.
-Daniel
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
+41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch