[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/1] drm/i915/mtl: enable local stolen memory

[Lucas De Marchi]

On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 12:00:38PM +0530, Iddamsetty, Aravind wrote:
>replying here for earlier comments too.
>
>On 21-09-2022 01:35, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 01:31:49AM -0700, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
>>> On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 12:49:40PM +0530, Aravind Iddamsetty wrote:
>>>> As an integrated GPU, MTL does not have local memory and
>>>> HAS_LMEM() returns false.  However the platform's stolen memory
>>>> is presented via BAR2 (i.e., the BAR we traditionally consider
>>>> to be the LMEM BAR) and should be managed by the driver the same
>>>> way that local memory is on dgpu platforms (which includes
>>>> setting the "lmem" bit on page table entries).  We use the term
>>>> "local stolen memory" to refer to this model.
>>>>
>>>> Cc: Matt Roper <matthew.d.roper at intel.com>
>>>> Cc: Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi at intel.com>
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: CQ Tang <cq.tang at intel.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Aravind Iddamsetty <aravind.iddamsetty at intel.com>
>>>> Original-author: CQ Tang
>>>> ---
>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_stolen.c | 113 +++++++++++++++++----
>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_ggtt.c       |   2 +-
>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h            |   3 +
>>>> 3 files changed, 100 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_stolen.c
>>>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_stolen.c
>>>> index acc561c0f0aa..bad5250fb764 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_stolen.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_stolen.c
>>>> @@ -77,6 +77,19 @@ void i915_gem_stolen_remove_node(struct
>>>> drm_i915_private *i915,
>>>>     mutex_unlock(&i915->mm.stolen_lock);
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> +static bool is_dsm_invalid(struct drm_i915_private *i915, struct
>>>> resource *dsm)
>>>> +{
>>>> +    if (!HAS_BAR2_SMEM_STOLEN(i915)) {
>>>
>>> I called a similar function as is_dsm_valid() in
>>> https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/108620/
>>>
>>> sounds weird  with "invalid" and the double negation on return early
>>> style.
>
>sure, will change it hope i can use that from your patch.

that patch is now pushed, so now you can reuse it.

Lucas De Marchi