[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/4] drm/i915: Support flags in whitlist WAs

[Tvrtko Ursulin]

On 14/06/2019 01:28, Robert M. Fosha wrote:
> From: John Harrison <John.C.Harrison at Intel.com>
> 
> Newer hardware adds flags to the whitelist work-around register. These
> allow per access direction privileges and ranges.
> 
> Signed-off-by: John Harrison <John.C.Harrison at Intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Robert M. Fosha <robert.m.fosha at intel.com>
> Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin at intel.com>
> Cc: Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk>
> ---
>   drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_workarounds.c | 9 ++++++++-
>   drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h             | 7 +++++++
>   2 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_workarounds.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_workarounds.c
> index 165b0a45e009..ae82340fff45 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_workarounds.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_workarounds.c
> @@ -1012,7 +1012,7 @@ bool intel_gt_verify_workarounds(struct drm_i915_private *i915,
>   }
>   
>   static void
> -whitelist_reg(struct i915_wa_list *wal, i915_reg_t reg)
> +whitelist_reg_ext(struct i915_wa_list *wal, i915_reg_t reg, u32 flags)
>   {
>   	struct i915_wa wa = {
>   		.reg = reg
> @@ -1021,9 +1021,16 @@ whitelist_reg(struct i915_wa_list *wal, i915_reg_t reg)
>   	if (GEM_DEBUG_WARN_ON(wal->count >= RING_MAX_NONPRIV_SLOTS))
>   		return;
>   
> +	wa.reg.reg |= flags;
>   	_wa_add(wal, &wa);
>   }
>   
> +static void
> +whitelist_reg(struct i915_wa_list *wal, i915_reg_t reg)
> +{
> +	whitelist_reg_ext(wal, reg, RING_FORCE_TO_NONPRIV_RW);
> +}
> +
>   static void gen9_whitelist_build(struct i915_wa_list *w)
>   {
>   	/* WaVFEStateAfterPipeControlwithMediaStateClear:skl,bxt,glk,cfl */
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h
> index edf9f93934a1..10fea5ab3fc3 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h
> @@ -2513,6 +2513,13 @@ enum i915_power_well_id {
>   #define   RING_WAIT_SEMAPHORE	(1 << 10) /* gen6+ */
>   
>   #define RING_FORCE_TO_NONPRIV(base, i) _MMIO(((base) + 0x4D0) + (i) * 4)
> +#define   RING_FORCE_TO_NONPRIV_RW		(0 << 28)    /* CFL+ & Gen11+ */

Shouldn't this comment be against the RD and WR flags, while the above 
is the legacy one?

> +#define   RING_FORCE_TO_NONPRIV_RD		(1 << 28)
> +#define   RING_FORCE_TO_NONPRIV_WR		(2 << 28)
> +#define   RING_FORCE_TO_NONPRIV_RANGE_1		(0 << 0)     /* CFL+ & Gen11+ */
> +#define   RING_FORCE_TO_NONPRIV_RANGE_4		(1 << 0)
> +#define   RING_FORCE_TO_NONPRIV_RANGE_16	(2 << 0)
> +#define   RING_FORCE_TO_NONPRIV_RANGE_64	(3 << 0)
>   #define   RING_MAX_NONPRIV_SLOTS  12
>   
>   #define GEN7_TLB_RD_ADDR	_MMIO(0x4700)
> 

Regards,

Tvrtko