[Intel-gfx] [RFC 01/14] drm/i915: Make i915_check_and_clear_faults take uncore

[Chris Wilson]

Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2019-06-11 09:35:07)
> 
> On 10/06/2019 17:26, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2019-06-10 16:54:06)
> >> From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin at intel.com>
> >>
> >> Continuing the conversion and elimination of implicit dev_priv.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin at intel.com>
> >> Suggested-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi at intel.com>
> >> ---
> >>   drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_engine_cs.c |  2 +-
> >>   drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_reset.c     | 28 ++++++++++++-----------
> >>   drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_reset.h     |  2 +-
> >>   drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c           |  2 +-
> >>   drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_gtt.c       |  4 ++--
> >>   5 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_engine_cs.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_engine_cs.c
> >> index c0d986db5a75..a046e8dccc96 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_engine_cs.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_engine_cs.c
> >> @@ -453,7 +453,7 @@ int intel_engines_init_mmio(struct drm_i915_private *i915)
> >>   
> >>          RUNTIME_INFO(i915)->num_engines = hweight32(mask);
> >>   
> >> -       i915_check_and_clear_faults(i915);
> >> +       i915_check_and_clear_faults(&i915->uncore);
> > 
> > This name is still setting off red flags for me, but I have to confess
> > that staring at it, passing uncore does make sense.
> 
> Rename to intel_uncore_check_and_clear_faults?
> 
> Or move later in the series as intel_gt_check_and_clear_faults?

I think I prefer the latter option, intel_gt_check_and_clear_faults.

> > I just wish we have per-engines faults everywhere and this could be
> > reduced to passing engine.
> > 
> > Hmm, this I guess we will just have to revisit in the near future as we
> > may get the opportunity to put these regs under more scrutiny.
> > 
> >>   
> >>          intel_setup_engine_capabilities(i915);
> >>   
> >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_reset.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_reset.c
> >> index 60d24110af80..13471916559b 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_reset.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_reset.c
> >> @@ -1166,10 +1166,10 @@ static void gen8_clear_engine_error_register(struct intel_engine_cs *engine)
> >>          GEN6_RING_FAULT_REG_POSTING_READ(engine);
> >>   }
> >>   
> >> -static void clear_error_registers(struct drm_i915_private *i915,
> >> +static void clear_error_registers(struct intel_uncore *uncore,
> >>                                    intel_engine_mask_t engine_mask)
> >>   {
> >> -       struct intel_uncore *uncore = &i915->uncore;
> >> +       struct drm_i915_private *i915 = uncore_to_i915(uncore);
> > 
> > Grr, I should have objected to uncore_to_i915() loudly from the
> > beginning
> > 
> > What's done is done,
> 
> Is it too late already? Shouldn't be. My thinking was the implementation 
> can easily be changed if/when backpointer is added (instead of 
> container_of). But if you would prefer we start without a helper, but 
> with a direct access to backpointer straight away that is fine by me.

I'm optimistic that we can land a split display/gt intel_uncore early
and so the churn is in the not too distant future.
-Chris