[Intel-gfx] [PATCH v7 2/4] drm/i915/guc : Removing i915_modparams.enable_guc_loading module parameter
Sujaritha
sujaritha.sundaresan at intel.com
Tue Oct 24 16:00:03 UTC 2017
On 10/18/2017 04:53 AM, Michal Wajdeczko wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Oct 2017 00:50:47 +0200, Sujaritha Sundaresan
> <sujaritha.sundaresan at intel.com> wrote:
>
>> We currently have two module parameters that control GuC:
>> "enable_guc_loading" and "enable_guc_submission". Whenever
>> we need i915_modparams.enable_guc_submission=1, we also need
>> enable_guc_loading=1. We also need enable_guc_loading=1 when
>> we want to verify the HuC, which is every time we have a HuC
>> (but all platforms with HuC have a GuC and viceversa).
>>
>> v2: Clarifying the commit message (Anusha)
>>
>> v3: Unify seq_puts messages, Re-factoring code as per review (Michal)
>>
>> v4: Rebase
>>
>> v5: Separating message unification into a separate patch
>>
>> v6: Re-factoring code (Sagar, Michal)
>> Rebase
>>
>> v7: Applying review comments (Sagar)
>> Rebase
>>
>> Suggested by: Oscar Mateo <oscar.mateo at intel.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Sujaritha Sundaresan <sujaritha.sundaresan at intel.com>
>> Cc: Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdeczko at intel.com>
>> Cc: Sagar Arun Kamble <sagar.a.kamble at intel.com>
>> Cc: Anusha Srivatsa <anusha.srivatsa at intel.com>
>> Cc: Oscar Mateo <oscar.mateo at intel.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c | 6 +--
>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h | 9 +++--
>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_context.c | 2 +-
>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_gtt.c | 2 +-
>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c | 2 +-
>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_params.c | 4 --
>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_params.h | 1 -
>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uc.c | 69
>> ++++++++++++++++++---------------
>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.c | 3 +-
>> 9 files changed, 50 insertions(+), 48 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
>> index ac25d63..bc31769 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
>> @@ -2361,7 +2361,7 @@ static int i915_huc_load_status_info(struct
>> seq_file *m, void *data)
>> struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = node_to_i915(m->private);
>> struct intel_uc_fw *huc_fw = &dev_priv->huc.fw;
>> - if (!HAS_HUC_UCODE(dev_priv)) {
>> + if (!HAS_GUC(dev_priv)) {
>> seq_puts(m, "not supported\n");
>> return 0;
>> }
>> @@ -2397,7 +2397,7 @@ static int i915_guc_load_status_info(struct
>> seq_file *m, void *data)
>> struct intel_uc_fw *guc_fw = &dev_priv->guc.fw;
>> u32 tmp, i;
>> - if (!HAS_GUC_UCODE(dev_priv)) {
>> + if (!HAS_GUC(dev_priv)) {
>> seq_puts(m, "not supported\n");
>> return 0;
>> }
>> @@ -2496,7 +2496,7 @@ static bool check_guc_submission(struct
>> seq_file *m)
>> if (!guc->execbuf_client) {
>> seq_printf(m, "GuC submission %s\n",
>> - HAS_GUC_SCHED(dev_priv) ?
>> + HAS_GUC(dev_priv) ?
>> "disabled" :
>> "not supported");
>
> Btw, there is also 3rd case: "failed" when we have Guc, but something
> went
> wrong with fw loading or enabling...
>
>> return false;
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
>> index dd141b2..5b9bdd0 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
>> @@ -3201,9 +3201,12 @@ static inline unsigned int
>> i915_sg_segment_size(void)
>> */
>> #define HAS_GUC(dev_priv) ((dev_priv)->info.has_guc)
>> #define HAS_GUC_CT(dev_priv) ((dev_priv)->info.has_guc_ct)
>> -#define HAS_GUC_UCODE(dev_priv) (HAS_GUC(dev_priv))
>> -#define HAS_GUC_SCHED(dev_priv) (HAS_GUC(dev_priv))
>> -#define HAS_HUC_UCODE(dev_priv) (HAS_GUC(dev_priv))
>> +#define HAS_GUC_UCODE(dev_priv) ((dev_priv)->guc.fw.path != NULL)
>> +#define HAS_HUC_UCODE(dev_priv) ((dev_priv)->huc.fw.path != NULL)
>> +
>> +#define NEEDS_GUC_LOADING(dev_priv) \
>> + (HAS_GUC(dev_priv) && \
>> + (i915_modparams.enable_guc_submission || HAS_HUC_UCODE(dev_priv)))
>
> Hmm, so by the moment we add huc fw definition to the driver we will
> enable guc loading, and as huc is always present with guc, this will
> silently enable guc loading for all platforms with guc(huc) and there
> will be no option to turn this off ...
>
> What if we don't care about Huc functionality ?
>
> If there will be Huc fw, both guc and huc will be loaded.
> If there will be no Huc fw on the system (but it will be defined in
> driver)
> then we will generate errors from Huc firware loading, and likely try
> to load
> Guc firmware for no purpose ...
>
Yes that is true. So if the user wants to avoid the GuC firmware from
getting loaded,
they must not have a HuC firmware to be loaded; in addition to not using
submission.
I think if this is included in the commit message, it will make things
clearer.
>> #define HAS_RESOURCE_STREAMER(dev_priv)
>> ((dev_priv)->info.has_resource_streamer)
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_context.c
>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_context.c
>> index 5bf96a2..692d609 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_context.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_context.c
>> @@ -314,7 +314,7 @@ static u32 default_desc_template(const struct
>> drm_i915_private *i915,
>> * present or not in use we still need a small bias as ring
>> wraparound
>> * at offset 0 sometimes hangs. No idea why.
>> */
>> - if (HAS_GUC(dev_priv) && i915_modparams.enable_guc_loading)
>> + if (NEEDS_GUC_LOADING(dev_priv))
>> ctx->ggtt_offset_bias = GUC_WOPCM_TOP;
>> else
>> ctx->ggtt_offset_bias = I915_GTT_PAGE_SIZE;
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_gtt.c
>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_gtt.c
>> index 527a2d2..0bbc8f0 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_gtt.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_gtt.c
>> @@ -3481,7 +3481,7 @@ int i915_ggtt_probe_hw(struct drm_i915_private
>> *dev_priv)
>> * currently don't have any bits spare to pass in this upper
>> * restriction!
>> */
>> - if (HAS_GUC(dev_priv) && i915_modparams.enable_guc_loading) {
>> + if (NEEDS_GUC_LOADING(dev_priv)) {
>> ggtt->base.total = min_t(u64, ggtt->base.total, GUC_GGTT_TOP);
>> ggtt->mappable_end = min(ggtt->mappable_end, ggtt->base.total);
>> }
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c
>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c
>> index b1296a5..ec76aac 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c
>> @@ -4026,7 +4026,7 @@ void intel_irq_init(struct drm_i915_private
>> *dev_priv)
>> for (i = 0; i < MAX_L3_SLICES; ++i)
>> dev_priv->l3_parity.remap_info[i] = NULL;
>> - if (HAS_GUC_SCHED(dev_priv))
>> + if (HAS_GUC(dev_priv))
>> dev_priv->pm_guc_events = GEN9_GUC_TO_HOST_INT_EVENT;
>> /* Let's track the enabled rps events */
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_params.c
>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_params.c
>> index b4faeb6..1c25f45 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_params.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_params.c
>> @@ -162,10 +162,6 @@ struct i915_params i915_modparams __read_mostly = {
>> "(0=use value from vbt [default], 1=low power swing(200mV),"
>> "2=default swing(400mV))");
>> -i915_param_named_unsafe(enable_guc_loading, int, 0400,
>> - "Enable GuC firmware loading "
>> - "(-1=auto, 0=never [default], 1=if available, 2=required)");
>> -
>> i915_param_named_unsafe(enable_guc_submission, int, 0400,
>> "Enable GuC submission "
>> "(-1=auto, 0=never [default], 1=if available, 2=required)");
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_params.h
>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_params.h
>> index c729226..9e1e231 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_params.h
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_params.h
>> @@ -44,7 +44,6 @@
>> param(int, disable_power_well, -1) \
>> param(int, enable_ips, 1) \
>> param(int, invert_brightness, 0) \
>> - param(int, enable_guc_loading, 0) \
>> param(int, enable_guc_submission, 0) \
>> param(int, guc_log_level, -1) \
>> param(char *, guc_firmware_path, NULL) \
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uc.c
>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uc.c
>> index 25bd162..df281525 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uc.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uc.c
>> @@ -49,36 +49,44 @@ static int __intel_uc_reset_hw(struct
>> drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
>> void intel_uc_sanitize_options(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
>> {
>> + /* Verify Hardware support */
>> if (!HAS_GUC(dev_priv)) {
>> - if (i915_modparams.enable_guc_loading > 0 ||
>> - i915_modparams.enable_guc_submission > 0)
>> - DRM_INFO("Ignoring GuC options, no hardware\n");
>> -
>> - i915_modparams.enable_guc_loading = 0;
>> - i915_modparams.enable_guc_submission = 0;
>> + if (i915_modparams.enable_guc_submission > 0)
>> + DRM_INFO("Ignoring GuC submission enable",
>> + "no hardware\n");
>
> Hmm, maybe to give clearer message to the user:
>
> DRM_INFO("Ignoring option %s - no hardware", "enable_guc_submission");
>
>> + i915_modparams.enable_guc_submission = 0;
>> return;
>> }
>> - /* A negative value means "use platform default" */
>> - if (i915_modparams.enable_guc_loading < 0)
>> - i915_modparams.enable_guc_loading = HAS_GUC_UCODE(dev_priv);
>> + /* Verify Firmware support */
>> + if (!HAS_GUC_UCODE(dev_priv)) {
>> + if (i915_modparams.enable_guc_submission == 1) {
>
> Hmm, I really don't like that we leak here enable_guc_submission = 2
> knowing that it will not work ...
>
>> + DRM_INFO("Ignoring GuC submission enable",
>> + "no firmware\n");
>
> DRM_INFO("Ignoring option %s - no firmware", "enable_guc_submission");
>
>> + i915_modparams.enable_guc_submission = 0;
>> + return;
>> + }
>> - /* Verify firmware version */
>> - if (i915_modparams.enable_guc_loading) {
>> - if (HAS_HUC_UCODE(dev_priv))
>> - intel_huc_select_fw(&dev_priv->huc);
>> + if (i915_modparams.enable_guc_submission < 0) {
>> + i915_modparams.enable_guc_submission = 0;
>> + return;
>> + }
>> - if (intel_guc_fw_select(&dev_priv->guc))
>> - i915_modparams.enable_guc_loading = 0;
>> + /*
>> + * If "required" (> 1), let it continue and we will fail later
>> + * due to the lack of firmware
>
> Hmm, but doing so will break the goal of the 'sanitize' options function
>
>> + */
>> +
>> }
>> - /* Can't enable guc submission without guc loaded */
>> - if (!i915_modparams.enable_guc_loading)
>> - i915_modparams.enable_guc_submission = 0;
>> + /*
>> + * A negative value means "use paltform default" (enabled if we
>> have
>
> Typo
>
>> + * survived to get here)
>> + */
>> - /* A negative value means "use platform default" */
>> if (i915_modparams.enable_guc_submission < 0)
>> - i915_modparams.enable_guc_submission = HAS_GUC_SCHED(dev_priv);
>> + i915_modparams.enable_guc_submission = HAS_GUC(dev_priv);
>> +
>
> Drop above extra line
>
>> }
>> void intel_uc_init_early(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
>> @@ -88,6 +96,8 @@ void intel_uc_init_early(struct drm_i915_private
>> *dev_priv)
>> void intel_uc_init_fw(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
>> {
>> + if (!HAS_GUC(dev_priv))
>> + return;
>
> Do we need this now ?
>
>> intel_uc_fw_fetch(dev_priv, &dev_priv->huc.fw);
>> intel_uc_fw_fetch(dev_priv, &dev_priv->guc.fw);
>> }
>> @@ -154,7 +164,7 @@ int intel_uc_init_hw(struct drm_i915_private
>> *dev_priv)
>> struct intel_guc *guc = &dev_priv->guc;
>> int ret, attempts;
>> - if (!i915_modparams.enable_guc_loading)
>> + if (!NEEDS_GUC_LOADING(dev_priv))
>> return 0;
>> guc_disable_communication(guc);
>> @@ -250,22 +260,17 @@ int intel_uc_init_hw(struct drm_i915_private
>> *dev_priv)
>> err_guc:
>> i915_ggtt_disable_guc(dev_priv);
>> - if (i915_modparams.enable_guc_loading > 1 ||
>> - i915_modparams.enable_guc_submission > 1) {
>> + if (i915_modparams.enable_guc_submission > 1) {
>> DRM_ERROR("GuC init failed. Firmware loading disabled.\n");
>> ret = -EIO;
>> + } else if (i915_modparams.enable_guc_submission == 1) {
>> + DRM_NOTE("Falling back from GuC submission to execlist
>> mode\n");
>> + i915_modparams.enable_guc_submission = 0;
>> + ret = 0;
>> } else {
>> - DRM_NOTE("GuC init failed. Firmware loading disabled.\n");
>> ret = 0;
>> }
>> - if (i915_modparams.enable_guc_submission) {
>> - i915_modparams.enable_guc_submission = 0;
>> - DRM_NOTE("Falling back from GuC submission to execlist
>> mode\n");
>> - }
>> -
>> - i915_modparams.enable_guc_loading = 0;
>> -
>> return ret;
>> }
>> @@ -273,7 +278,7 @@ void intel_uc_fini_hw(struct drm_i915_private
>> *dev_priv)
>> {
>> guc_free_load_err_log(&dev_priv->guc);
>> - if (!i915_modparams.enable_guc_loading)
>> + if (!NEEDS_GUC_LOADING(dev_priv))
>> return;
>> if (i915_modparams.enable_guc_submission)
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.c
>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.c
>> index 20e3c65c..c631b0e 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.c
>> @@ -1803,8 +1803,7 @@ int intel_guc_reset(struct drm_i915_private
>> *dev_priv)
>> {
>> int ret;
>> - if (!HAS_GUC(dev_priv))
>> - return -EINVAL;
>> + GEM_BUG_ON(!HAS_GUC(dev_priv));
>
> Hmm, this looks like unrelated change - please move to separate patch
>
>> intel_uncore_forcewake_get(dev_priv, FORCEWAKE_ALL);
>> ret = gen6_hw_domain_reset(dev_priv, GEN9_GRDOM_GUC);
Thanks for the review,
Regards,
Sujaritha
More information about the Intel-gfx
mailing list