[Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2 09/12] drm/i915/rkl: Use revid->stepping tables

[Srivatsa, Anusha]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roper, Matthew D <matthew.d.roper at intel.com>
> Sent: Friday, July 9, 2021 8:37 PM
> To: intel-gfx at lists.freedesktop.org
> Cc: Srivatsa, Anusha <anusha.srivatsa at intel.com>; Roper, Matthew D
> <matthew.d.roper at intel.com>
> Subject: [PATCH v2 09/12] drm/i915/rkl: Use revid->stepping tables
> 
> Switch RKL to use a revid->stepping table as we're trying to do on all
> platforms going forward.
> 
> Bspec: 44501
> Signed-off-by: Matt Roper <matthew.d.roper at intel.com>
> ---
>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_psr.c | 4 ++--
>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h          | 8 ++------
>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_step.c        | 9 +++++++++
>  3 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_psr.c
> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_psr.c
> index 9643624fe160..74b2aa3c2946 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_psr.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_psr.c
> @@ -594,7 +594,7 @@ static void hsw_activate_psr2(struct intel_dp
> *intel_dp)
>  	if (intel_dp->psr.psr2_sel_fetch_enabled) {
>  		/* WA 1408330847 */
>  		if (IS_TGL_DISPLAY_STEP(dev_priv, STEP_A0, STEP_A0) ||
> -		    IS_RKL_REVID(dev_priv, RKL_REVID_A0, RKL_REVID_A0))
> +		    IS_RKL_DISPLAY_STEP(dev_priv, STEP_A0, STEP_A0))
>  			intel_de_rmw(dev_priv, CHICKEN_PAR1_1,
>  				     DIS_RAM_BYPASS_PSR2_MAN_TRACK,
>  				     DIS_RAM_BYPASS_PSR2_MAN_TRACK);
> @@ -1342,7 +1342,7 @@ static void intel_psr_disable_locked(struct intel_dp
> *intel_dp)
>  	/* WA 1408330847 */
>  	if (intel_dp->psr.psr2_sel_fetch_enabled &&
>  	    (IS_TGL_DISPLAY_STEP(dev_priv, STEP_A0, STEP_A0) ||
> -	     IS_RKL_REVID(dev_priv, RKL_REVID_A0, RKL_REVID_A0)))
> +	     IS_RKL_DISPLAY_STEP(dev_priv, STEP_A0, STEP_A0)))
>  		intel_de_rmw(dev_priv, CHICKEN_PAR1_1,
>  			     DIS_RAM_BYPASS_PSR2_MAN_TRACK, 0);
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h index b3ce2b73a143..9195131cf90f
> 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
> @@ -1549,12 +1549,8 @@ IS_SUBPLATFORM(const struct drm_i915_private
> *i915,
>  	(IS_TIGERLAKE(__i915) && !(IS_TGL_U(__i915) || IS_TGL_Y(__i915))
> && \
>  	 IS_GT_STEP(__i915, since, until))
> 
> -#define RKL_REVID_A0		0x0
> -#define RKL_REVID_B0		0x1
> -#define RKL_REVID_C0		0x4
> -
> -#define IS_RKL_REVID(p, since, until) \
> -	(IS_ROCKETLAKE(p) && IS_REVID(p, since, until))
> +#define IS_RKL_DISPLAY_STEP(p, since, until) \
> +	(IS_ROCKETLAKE(p) && IS_DISPLAY_STEP(p, since, until))
> 

If a platform has the same gt and display stepping, I wonder if we should stick to using IS_<PLATFORM>_GT_STEP while replacing IS<PLATFORM>_REVID instances. The previous patches have IS_<PLATFORMS>_GT_STEP.
Just a thought.

Anusha 

>  #define DG1_REVID_A0		0x0
>  #define DG1_REVID_B0		0x1
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_step.c
> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_step.c
> index 6e1b132ecf38..21211649e6bb 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_step.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_step.c
> @@ -75,6 +75,12 @@ static const struct intel_step_info tgl_revids[] = {
>  	[1] = { .gt_step = STEP_B0, .display_step = STEP_D0 },  };
> 
> +static const struct intel_step_info rkl_revids[] = {
> +	[0] = { COMMON_STEPPING(A0) },
> +	[1] = { COMMON_STEPPING(B0) },
> +	[4] = { COMMON_STEPPING(C0) },
> +};
> +
>  static const struct intel_step_info adls_revids[] = {
>  	[0x0] = { .gt_step = STEP_A0, .display_step = STEP_A0 },
>  	[0x1] = { .gt_step = STEP_A0, .display_step = STEP_A2 }, @@ -103,6
> +109,9 @@ void intel_step_init(struct drm_i915_private *i915)
>  	} else if (IS_ALDERLAKE_S(i915)) {
>  		revids = adls_revids;
>  		size = ARRAY_SIZE(adls_revids);
> +	} else if (IS_ROCKETLAKE(i915)) {
> +		revids = rkl_revids;
> +		size = ARRAY_SIZE(rkl_revids);
>  	} else if (IS_TGL_U(i915) || IS_TGL_Y(i915)) {
>  		revids = tgl_uy_revids;
>  		size = ARRAY_SIZE(tgl_uy_revids);
> --
> 2.25.4