[PATCH v2 5/6] drm/xe: Move HuC init before GuC init
Lucas De Marchi
lucas.demarchi at intel.com
Tue Aug 20 20:42:35 UTC 2024
On Tue, Aug 20, 2024 at 10:29:57AM GMT, Matthew Brost wrote:
>The GuC fini, also fini the HuC so move HuC init first.
AFAIU this is about
guc_fini_hw()
xe_uc_fini_hw()
xe_uc_sanitize_reset()
xe_uc_sanitize()
xe_huc_sanitize()
xe_guc_sanitize()
but why exactly do we do that layering? Shouldn't xe_uc_init()
be the one adding an action to xe_uc_fini_hw() or let each of the
uc to sanitize itself?
>
>Signed-off-by: Matthew Brost <matthew.brost at intel.com>
>---
> drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_uc.c | 8 ++++----
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
>diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_uc.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_uc.c
>index 0d073a9987c2..5b7d6f44a7de 100644
>--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_uc.c
>+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_uc.c
>@@ -36,6 +36,10 @@ int xe_uc_init(struct xe_uc *uc)
> {
> int ret;
>
>+ ret = xe_huc_init(&uc->huc);
>+ if (ret)
>+ goto err;
>+
if we are keeping this patch, then the comment below should be on top,
or maybe even on top of the function.
Lucas De Marchi
> /*
> * We call the GuC/HuC/GSC init functions even if GuC submission is off
> * to correctly move our tracking of the FW state to "disabled".
>@@ -44,10 +48,6 @@ int xe_uc_init(struct xe_uc *uc)
> if (ret)
> goto err;
>
>- ret = xe_huc_init(&uc->huc);
>- if (ret)
>- goto err;
>-
> ret = xe_gsc_init(&uc->gsc);
> if (ret)
> goto err;
>--
>2.34.1
>
More information about the Intel-xe
mailing list