[Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2 2/5] drm/i915/uc: Move uC WOPCM setup in uc_init_hw

[Michal Wajdeczko]

On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 01:07:40 +0200, Daniele Ceraolo Spurio  
<daniele.ceraolospurio at intel.com> wrote:

> The register we write are not WOPCM regs but uC ones related to how
> GuC and HuC are going to use the WOPCM, so it makes logical sense
> for them to be programmed as part of uc_init_hw. The WOPCM map on the
> other side is not uC-specific (although that is our main use-case), so
> keep that separate.
>
> v2: move write_and_verify to uncore, fix log, re-use err_out tag,
>     add intel_wopcm_guc_base, fix log
>
> Signed-off-by: Daniele Ceraolo Spurio <daniele.ceraolospurio at intel.com>
> Cc: Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdeczko at intel.com>
> Cc: Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk>
> ---

> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.h
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.h
> @@ -393,6 +393,18 @@ static inline void intel_uncore_rmw_fw(struct  
> intel_uncore *uncore,
>  	intel_uncore_write_fw(uncore, reg, val);
>  }
> +static inline int intel_uncore_write_and_verify(struct intel_uncore  
> *uncore,
> +						i915_reg_t reg, u32 val,
> +						u32 mask, u32 expected_val)
> +{
> +	u32 reg_val;
> +
> +	intel_uncore_write(uncore, reg, val);
> +	reg_val = intel_uncore_read(uncore, reg);
> +
> +	return (reg_val & mask) != expected_val ? -EINVAL : 0;
> +}

nit: I'm not sure that -EINVAL is the best choice (not sure about
-ENODATA or -ENOKEY either) that's why I wanted to use bool ;)

Reviewed-by: Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdeczko at intel.com>