[Intel-xe] [PATCH 4/5] fixup! drm/xe/display: Implement display support

[Jani Nikula]

On Tue, 27 Jun 2023, Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi at intel.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 27, 2023 at 01:22:22PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
>>Add raw_reg_* accessors and use them.
>>
>>Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula at intel.com>
>>---
>> .../drm/xe/compat-i915-headers/intel_uncore.h | 24 +++++++++++++++++++
>> drivers/gpu/drm/xe/display/ext/i915_irq.c     | 15 ++----------
>> 2 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>>
>>diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/compat-i915-headers/intel_uncore.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/compat-i915-headers/intel_uncore.h
>>index 652654b5481d..a46dca558366 100644
>>--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/compat-i915-headers/intel_uncore.h
>>+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/compat-i915-headers/intel_uncore.h
>>@@ -140,4 +140,28 @@ static inline void intel_uncore_write_notrace(struct intel_uncore *uncore,
>> 	xe_mmio_write32(__compat_uncore_to_gt(uncore), reg, val);
>> }
>>
>>+static inline void __iomem *intel_uncore_regs(struct intel_uncore *uncore)
>>+{
>>+	struct xe_device *xe = container_of(uncore, struct xe_device, uncore);
>>+
>>+	return xe_device_get_root_tile(xe)->mmio.regs;
>>+}
>>+
>>+/*
>>+ * The raw_reg_{read,write} macros are intended as a micro-optimization for
>>+ * interrupt handlers so that the pointer indirection on uncore->regs can
>>+ * be computed once (and presumably cached in a register) instead of generating
>>+ * extra load instructions for each MMIO access.
>>+ *
>>+ * Given that these macros are only intended for non-GSI interrupt registers
>>+ * (and the goal is to avoid extra instructions generated by the compiler),
>>+ * these macros do not account for uncore->gsi_offset.  Any caller that needs
>>+ * to use these macros on a GSI register is responsible for adding the
>>+ * appropriate GSI offset to the 'base' parameter.
>>+ */
>>+#define raw_reg_read(base, reg) \
>
> it's more a "map" rather than a "base". Currently it bypasses any
> forcewake, gsi and it's also hidden from tracing.
>
> As a micro-optimization I wonder if there are numbers anywhere to
> justify them.  As for the *move* being done here from
> xe/display/ext/i915_irq.c to xe/compat-i915-headers/intel_uncore.h, I'm
> ok with it. But why are we converting it to a macro rather than the
> inline function?  That would mean it also silently ignores any steering
> needed, adding to the list above of things ignored, since there is no
> type check anymore.

100% copy-paste from i915.

BR,
Jani.


>
> Lucas De Marchi
>
>>+	readl(base + i915_mmio_reg_offset(reg))
>>+#define raw_reg_write(base, reg, value) \
>>+	writel(value, base + i915_mmio_reg_offset(reg))
>>+
>> #endif /* __INTEL_UNCORE_H__ */
>>diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/display/ext/i915_irq.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/display/ext/i915_irq.c
>>index 6235ff9dec36..157403d1d8fe 100644
>>--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/display/ext/i915_irq.c
>>+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/display/ext/i915_irq.c
>>@@ -35,8 +35,10 @@
>> #include <drm/drm_drv.h>
>>
>> #include "i915_drv.h"
>>+#include "i915_irq.h"
>> #include "i915_reg.h"
>> #include "icl_dsi_regs.h"
>>+#include "intel_clock_gating.h"
>> #include "intel_display_trace.h"
>> #include "intel_display_types.h"
>> #include "intel_dp_aux.h"
>>@@ -48,19 +50,6 @@
>> #include "intel_psr_regs.h"
>> #include "intel_uncore.h"
>>
>>-static u32 raw_reg_read(void __iomem *base, i915_reg_t reg)
>>-{
>>-	return readl(base + reg.reg);
>>-}
>>-
>>-static void raw_reg_write(void __iomem *base, i915_reg_t reg, u32 value)
>>-{
>>-	writel(value, base + reg.reg);
>>-}
>>-
>>-#include "i915_irq.h"
>>-#include "intel_clock_gating.h"
>>-
>> static void gen3_irq_reset(struct xe_device *dev_priv, i915_reg_t imr,
>> 		    i915_reg_t iir, i915_reg_t ier)
>> {
>>-- 
>>2.39.2
>>

-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center