[PATCH v6 05/25] drm/xe/device: Update handling of xe_force_wake_get return
Nilawar, Badal
badal.nilawar at intel.com
Fri Oct 4 07:18:18 UTC 2024
On 30-09-2024 11:01, Himal Prasad Ghimiray wrote:
> With xe_force_wake_get() now returning the refcount-incremented domain
> mask, the return value will be 0 for single domains (excluding
> XE_FORCEWAKE_ALL) in the event of a failure. Modify the return handling
> of xe_force_wake_get() accordingly and pass the return value as input to
> xe_force_wake_put().
Now with changes in patch 3, return value 0 indicates failure for
XE_FORCEWAKE_ALL, i.e. no domains awake, as well. Please rephrase the
commit message accordingly.
Regards,
Badal
>
> v3
> - return xe_wakeref_t instead of int in xe_force_wake_get()
> - xe_force_wake_put() error doesn't need to be escalated/considered as
> probing error. It internally WARNS on domain ack failure.
>
> v5
> - return unsigned int xe_force_wake_get()
>
> Cc: Badal Nilawar <badal.nilawar at intel.com>
> Cc: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi at intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Himal Prasad Ghimiray <himal.prasad.ghimiray at intel.com>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_device.c | 25 ++++++++++++++-----------
> 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_device.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_device.c
> index 8e9b551c7033..e885edacf39f 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_device.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_device.c
> @@ -600,8 +600,8 @@ int xe_device_probe_early(struct xe_device *xe)
> static int probe_has_flat_ccs(struct xe_device *xe)
> {
> struct xe_gt *gt;
> + unsigned int fw_ref;
> u32 reg;
> - int err;
>
> /* Always enabled/disabled, no runtime check to do */
> if (GRAPHICS_VER(xe) < 20 || !xe->info.has_flat_ccs)
> @@ -609,9 +609,9 @@ static int probe_has_flat_ccs(struct xe_device *xe)
>
> gt = xe_root_mmio_gt(xe);
>
> - err = xe_force_wake_get(gt_to_fw(gt), XE_FW_GT);
> - if (err)
> - return err;
> + fw_ref = xe_force_wake_get(gt_to_fw(gt), XE_FW_GT);
> + if (!fw_ref)
> + return -ETIMEDOUT;
>
> reg = xe_gt_mcr_unicast_read_any(gt, XE2_FLAT_CCS_BASE_RANGE_LOWER);
> xe->info.has_flat_ccs = (reg & XE2_FLAT_CCS_ENABLE);
> @@ -620,7 +620,8 @@ static int probe_has_flat_ccs(struct xe_device *xe)
> drm_dbg(&xe->drm,
> "Flat CCS has been disabled in bios, May lead to performance impact");
>
> - return xe_force_wake_put(gt_to_fw(gt), XE_FW_GT);
> + xe_force_wake_put(gt_to_fw(gt), fw_ref);
> + return 0;
> }
>
> int xe_device_probe(struct xe_device *xe)
> @@ -871,6 +872,7 @@ void xe_device_wmb(struct xe_device *xe)
> void xe_device_td_flush(struct xe_device *xe)
> {
> struct xe_gt *gt;
> + unsigned int fw_ref;
> u8 id;
>
> if (!IS_DGFX(xe) || GRAPHICS_VER(xe) < 20)
> @@ -885,7 +887,8 @@ void xe_device_td_flush(struct xe_device *xe)
> if (xe_gt_is_media_type(gt))
> continue;
>
> - if (xe_force_wake_get(gt_to_fw(gt), XE_FW_GT))
> + fw_ref = xe_force_wake_get(gt_to_fw(gt), XE_FW_GT);
> + if (!fw_ref)
> return;
>
> xe_mmio_write32(>->mmio, XE2_TDF_CTRL, TRANSIENT_FLUSH_REQUEST);
> @@ -900,22 +903,22 @@ void xe_device_td_flush(struct xe_device *xe)
> 150, NULL, false))
> xe_gt_err_once(gt, "TD flush timeout\n");
>
> - xe_force_wake_put(gt_to_fw(gt), XE_FW_GT);
> + xe_force_wake_put(gt_to_fw(gt), fw_ref);
> }
> }
>
> void xe_device_l2_flush(struct xe_device *xe)
> {
> struct xe_gt *gt;
> - int err;
> + uint fw_ref;
>
> gt = xe_root_mmio_gt(xe);
>
> if (!XE_WA(gt, 16023588340))
> return;
>
> - err = xe_force_wake_get(gt_to_fw(gt), XE_FW_GT);
> - if (err)
> + fw_ref = xe_force_wake_get(gt_to_fw(gt), XE_FW_GT);
> + if (!fw_ref)
> return;
>
> spin_lock(>->global_invl_lock);
> @@ -925,7 +928,7 @@ void xe_device_l2_flush(struct xe_device *xe)
> xe_gt_err_once(gt, "Global invalidation timeout\n");
> spin_unlock(>->global_invl_lock);
>
> - xe_force_wake_put(gt_to_fw(gt), XE_FW_GT);
> + xe_force_wake_put(gt_to_fw(gt), fw_ref);
> }
>
> u32 xe_device_ccs_bytes(struct xe_device *xe, u64 size)
More information about the Intel-xe
mailing list