[Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: Remove i915 ggtt WA since GT E

[Joonas Lahtinen]

Quoting Yang, Dong (2019-08-14 03:43:44)
> comments updated, please review again.

You seem to have missed the comments to the code itself.

Regards, Joonas

> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joonas Lahtinen [mailto:joonas.lahtinen at linux.intel.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2019 8:47 PM
> To: Yang, Dong <dong.yang at intel.com>; intel-gfx at lists.freedesktop.org
> Cc: Yang at freedesktop.org
> Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: Remove i915 ggtt WA since GT E
> 
> Quoting Dong Yang (2019-08-12 05:36:16)
> > From: "Yang, Dong" <dong.yang at intel.com>
> > 
> > The APL already fixed this bug since GT E, bug exist from
> > 0 to D, apply WA according GT stepping.
> 
> "Broxton steppings starting from E0 have fixed the bug."
> 
> > Signed-off-by: Yang, Dong <dong.yang at intel.com>
> 
> You probably want to use "" here too. Or just swap order.
> 
> > ---
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h | 4 +++-
> >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h 
> > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h index 5f3e5c13fbaa..ee384c28174a 
> > 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
> > @@ -2141,6 +2141,8 @@ IS_SUBPLATFORM(const struct drm_i915_private *i915,
> >  #define BXT_REVID_B0           0x3
> >  #define BXT_REVID_B_LAST       0x8
> >  #define BXT_REVID_C0           0x9
> > +#define BXT_REVID_D0           0xC
> 
> #define BXT_REVID_D_LAST        0xC
> 
> > +#define BXT_REVID_E0           0xD
> >  
> >  #define IS_BXT_REVID(dev_priv, since, until) \
> >         (IS_BROXTON(dev_priv) && IS_REVID(dev_priv, since, until)) @@ 
> > -2357,7 +2359,7 @@ static inline bool 
> > intel_scanout_needs_vtd_wa(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)  static 
> > inline bool  intel_ggtt_update_needs_vtd_wa(struct drm_i915_private 
> > *dev_priv)  {
> > -       return IS_BROXTON(dev_priv) && intel_vtd_active();
> > +       return return IS_BXT_REVID(dev_priv, 0, BXT_REVID_D0) && 
> > + intel_vtd_active();
> 
>         return IS_BXT_REVID(dev_priv, 0, BXT_REVID_D_LAST) &&
>                intel_vtd_active();
> 
> Regards, Joonas