[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