[PATCH v4 3/3] drm/xe/bmg: Update Wa_14022085890

[Summers, Stuart]

On Thu, 2025-06-12 at 14:31 -0500, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 12, 2025 at 07:15:14PM +0000, Stuart Summers wrote:
> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_wa_oob.rules
> > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_wa_oob.rules
> > > index 425cb401c2762..38b589fe9198d 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_wa_oob.rules
> > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_wa_oob.rules
> > > @@ -59,3 +59,7 @@ no_media_l3   MEDIA_VERSION(3000)
> > >                 MEDIA_VERSION_RANGE(1301, 3000)
> > >  16026508708    GRAPHICS_VERSION_RANGE(1200, 3001)
> > >                 MEDIA_VERSION_RANGE(1300, 3000)
> > > +
> > > +# SoC workaround - should apply to all platforms using this
> > > +# graphics version in tile->primary_gt
> > 
> > If this is an SoC specific workaround that spreads across GTs,
> > shouldn't we be using the device ID rather than the GMD ID to
> > determine
> > the workaround application?
> 
> devid would be a nightmare to maintain... imagine each time we add a
> devid we need to add checks in multiple places in the codebase.
> We should add support for SoC WAs properly and then migrate this WA
> there. No need to do that now though as that would mean a much harder
> path to linux-stable and no real benefit.
> 
> The way it is now, we eventually remove it from here and add to e.g.
> drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_soc_wa_oob.rules. Or even just keep it in the
> same
> place and do
> 
> -14022085890    GRAPHICS_VERSION(2001)
> +14022085890    SOC_VERSION(1234)

Ok and the 2001 from bspec does seem specific to the skus right now
that have this soc. It would be nice to have a way to tell that this
needs to be reviewed if we get something else with the same GT IDs but
different SoC. I know this says SoC workaround already, but is that
something we can expand to something like:
SoC workaround - currently applies to all platforms with the following
primary GT GMDID.

Otherwise the rest of the changes look good to me:
Reviewed-by: Stuart Summers <stuart.summers at intel.com>

Comment rework isn't a blocker for me though. Feel free to keep it as-
is, we just need to remember to review this (anything with "soc
workaround") when we do that rework you mentioned.

Thanks,
Stuart

> 
> Lucas De Marchi