[Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2 1/2] drm/i915/guc: fix GuC suspend/resume

[Daniele Ceraolo Spurio]

On 27/11/2018 11:34, Daniele Ceraolo Spurio wrote:
> 
> 
> On 26/11/2018 06:51, Michal Wajdeczko wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 Oct 2018 00:46:47 +0200, Daniele Ceraolo Spurio 
>> <daniele.ceraolospurio at intel.com> wrote:
>>
>> /snip/
>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_fwif.h 
>>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_fwif.h
>>> index 8382d591c784..1a853cc627e3 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_fwif.h
>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_fwif.h
>>> @@ -687,6 +687,13 @@ enum intel_guc_report_status {
>>>      INTEL_GUC_REPORT_STATUS_COMPLETE = 0x4,
>>>  };
>>> +enum intel_guc_sleep_state_status {
>>> +    INTEL_GUC_SLEEP_STATE_SUCCESS = 0x0,
>>> +    INTEL_GUC_SLEEP_STATE_PREEMPT_TO_IDLE_FAILED = 0x1,
>>> +    INTEL_GUC_SLEEP_STATE_ENGINE_RESET_FAILED = 0x2
>>> +};
>>
>> btw, it used to be 0,1,2 but from some time fw defines above as:
>>
>>      INTEL_GUC_SLEEP_STATE_SUCCESS = 0x1,
>>      INTEL_GUC_SLEEP_STATE_PREEMPT_TO_IDLE_FAILED = 0x2,
>>      INTEL_GUC_SLEEP_STATE_ENGINE_RESET_FAILED = 0x3,
>>
>> Michal
> 
> Yeah, I think I had already mentioned in some reply that the newer 
> firmware does suspend/resume differently, but I haven't looked at the 
> details. I'm not even sure if polling the register will still be required.
> 
> Daniele

I've confirmed with the GuC team that the differences are mostly 
internal to GuC and the only change from the kernel perspective is that 
the enum values have changed. We still need to do the polling, but I 
guess we'll be able to init the register to zero since all the return 
values are > 0.

Daniele

> _______________________________________________
> Intel-gfx mailing list
> Intel-gfx at lists.freedesktop.org
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx