[PATCH v3 1/3] drm/xe: Cleanup force wake registers bit definitions
Rodrigo Vivi
rodrigo.vivi at intel.com
Wed Jun 5 17:28:06 UTC 2024
On Wed, Jun 05, 2024 at 03:20:03PM +0530, Himal Prasad Ghimiray wrote:
> - Remove unused bit definitions.
> - Driver uses BIT(0) for waking/sleeping the domain and since the
> registers are masked respective mask bit BIT(16) needs to be set. Use
> defines for these bits and use them in domain initialization.
>
> Cc: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi at intel.com>
> Cc: Badal Nilawar <badal.nilawar at intel.com>
> Suggested-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi at intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Himal Prasad Ghimiray <himal.prasad.ghimiray at intel.com>
> Reviewed-by: Badal Nilawar <badal.nilawar at intel.com>
> Reviewed-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi at intel.com>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/xe/regs/xe_gt_regs.h | 8 +++++---
> drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_force_wake.c | 18 ++++++++++++------
> 2 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/regs/xe_gt_regs.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/regs/xe_gt_regs.h
> index d09b2473259f..47c26c37608d 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/regs/xe_gt_regs.h
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/regs/xe_gt_regs.h
> @@ -487,9 +487,11 @@
> ((ccs) << ((cslice) * CCS_MODE_CSLICE_WIDTH))
>
> #define FORCEWAKE_ACK_GT XE_REG(0x130044)
> -#define FORCEWAKE_KERNEL BIT(0)
> -#define FORCEWAKE_USER BIT(1)
> -#define FORCEWAKE_KERNEL_FALLBACK BIT(15)
> +
> +/* Applicable for all FORCEWAKE_DOMAIN and FORCEWAKE_ACK_DOMAIN regs */
> +#define FORCEWAKE_KERNEL 0
> +#define FORCEWAKE_MT(bit) BIT(bit)
> +#define FORCEWAKE_MT_MASK(bit) BIT((bit) + 16)
>
> #define MTL_MEDIA_PERF_LIMIT_REASONS XE_REG(0x138030)
> #define MTL_MEDIA_MC6 XE_REG(0x138048)
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_force_wake.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_force_wake.c
> index 9bbe8a5040da..54279c3814af 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_force_wake.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_force_wake.c
> @@ -52,13 +52,15 @@ void xe_force_wake_init_gt(struct xe_gt *gt, struct xe_force_wake *fw)
> XE_FW_DOMAIN_ID_GT,
> FORCEWAKE_GT,
> FORCEWAKE_ACK_GT_MTL,
> - BIT(0), BIT(16));
> + FORCEWAKE_MT(FORCEWAKE_KERNEL),
> + FORCEWAKE_MT_MASK(FORCEWAKE_KERNEL));
hmm.... looking at this now I believe it would be better to just pass the FORCEWAKE_KERNEL bit
number as param and then use the MT and MT_MASK inside the domain_init function...
but up you... my rv-b remains whatever you decide.
> } else {
> domain_init(&fw->domains[XE_FW_DOMAIN_ID_GT],
> XE_FW_DOMAIN_ID_GT,
> FORCEWAKE_GT,
> FORCEWAKE_ACK_GT,
> - BIT(0), BIT(16));
> + FORCEWAKE_MT(FORCEWAKE_KERNEL),
> + FORCEWAKE_MT_MASK(FORCEWAKE_KERNEL));
> }
> }
>
> @@ -74,7 +76,8 @@ void xe_force_wake_init_engines(struct xe_gt *gt, struct xe_force_wake *fw)
> XE_FW_DOMAIN_ID_RENDER,
> FORCEWAKE_RENDER,
> FORCEWAKE_ACK_RENDER,
> - BIT(0), BIT(16));
> + FORCEWAKE_MT(FORCEWAKE_KERNEL),
> + FORCEWAKE_MT_MASK(FORCEWAKE_KERNEL));
>
> for (i = XE_HW_ENGINE_VCS0, j = 0; i <= XE_HW_ENGINE_VCS7; ++i, ++j) {
> if (!(gt->info.engine_mask & BIT(i)))
> @@ -84,7 +87,8 @@ void xe_force_wake_init_engines(struct xe_gt *gt, struct xe_force_wake *fw)
> XE_FW_DOMAIN_ID_MEDIA_VDBOX0 + j,
> FORCEWAKE_MEDIA_VDBOX(j),
> FORCEWAKE_ACK_MEDIA_VDBOX(j),
> - BIT(0), BIT(16));
> + FORCEWAKE_MT(FORCEWAKE_KERNEL),
> + FORCEWAKE_MT_MASK(FORCEWAKE_KERNEL));
> }
>
> for (i = XE_HW_ENGINE_VECS0, j = 0; i <= XE_HW_ENGINE_VECS3; ++i, ++j) {
> @@ -95,7 +99,8 @@ void xe_force_wake_init_engines(struct xe_gt *gt, struct xe_force_wake *fw)
> XE_FW_DOMAIN_ID_MEDIA_VEBOX0 + j,
> FORCEWAKE_MEDIA_VEBOX(j),
> FORCEWAKE_ACK_MEDIA_VEBOX(j),
> - BIT(0), BIT(16));
> + FORCEWAKE_MT(FORCEWAKE_KERNEL),
> + FORCEWAKE_MT_MASK(FORCEWAKE_KERNEL));
> }
>
> if (gt->info.engine_mask & BIT(XE_HW_ENGINE_GSCCS0))
> @@ -103,7 +108,8 @@ void xe_force_wake_init_engines(struct xe_gt *gt, struct xe_force_wake *fw)
> XE_FW_DOMAIN_ID_GSC,
> FORCEWAKE_GSC,
> FORCEWAKE_ACK_GSC,
> - BIT(0), BIT(16));
> + FORCEWAKE_MT(FORCEWAKE_KERNEL),
> + FORCEWAKE_MT_MASK(FORCEWAKE_KERNEL));
> }
>
> static void domain_wake(struct xe_gt *gt, struct xe_force_wake_domain *domain)
> --
> 2.25.1
>
More information about the Intel-xe
mailing list