<!DOCTYPE html><html><head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 07-08-2025 16:52, Nilawar, Badal
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:bbbc9ff9-3547-4e5c-a491-3768cbbdb820@intel.com">
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 07-08-2025 16:39, Poosa, Karthik
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:12626350-3e4b-4462-8401-6fbd3412f8c9@intel.com"> <br>
On 07-08-2025 16:03, Nilawar, Badal wrote: <br>
<blockquote type="cite"> <br>
On 06-08-2025 22:56, Karthik Poosa wrote: <br>
<blockquote type="cite">Clamp writes to power limits
powerX_crit/currX_crit, powerX_cap, <br>
powerX_max, to the maximum supported by the pcode mailbox <br>
when sysfs-provided values exceed this limit. <br>
Although the pcode already performs clamping, values beyond
the pcode <br>
mailbox's supported range get truncated, leading to
incorrect <br>
critical power settings. <br>
This patch ensures proper clamping to prevent such
truncation. <br>
<br>
v2: <br>
- Address below review comments. (Riana) <br>
- Split comments into multiple sentences. <br>
- Use local variables for readability. <br>
- Add a debug log. <br>
- Use u64 instead of unsigned long. <br>
<br>
Signed-off-by: Karthik Poosa <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:karthik.poosa@intel.com" moz-do-not-send="true"><karthik.poosa@intel.com></a>
<br>
Fixes: 92d44a422d0d ("drm/xe/hwmon: Expose card reactive
critical power") <br>
Fixes: fb1b70607f73 ("drm/xe/hwmon: Expose power
attributes") <br>
--- <br>
drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_hwmon.c | 29
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ <br>
1 file changed, 29 insertions(+) <br>
<br>
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_hwmon.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_hwmon.c <br>
index f08fc4377d25..768a942ab0e7 100644 <br>
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_hwmon.c <br>
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_hwmon.c <br>
@@ -332,6 +332,7 @@ static int
xe_hwmon_power_max_write(struct xe_hwmon *hwmon, u32 attr,
int channe <br>
int ret = 0; <br>
u32 reg_val, max; <br>
struct xe_reg rapl_limit; <br>
+ u64 max_mbx_power_limit = 0; <br>
mutex_lock(&hwmon->hwmon_lock); <br>
@@ -356,6 +357,20 @@ static int
xe_hwmon_power_max_write(struct xe_hwmon *hwmon, u32 attr,
int channe <br>
goto unlock; <br>
} <br>
+ /* <br>
+ * If the sysfs value exceeds the pcode mailbox cmd
WRITE_PSYSGPU/PACKAGE_POWER_LIMIT <br>
+ * max supported value, clamp it to the command's max
(U12.3 format). <br>
+ * This is to avoid truncation during reg_val
calculation below and ensure the valid <br>
+ * power limit is sent for pcode which would clamp it
to card-supported value. <br>
+ */ <br>
+ max_mbx_power_limit = ((PWR_LIM_VAL) >>
hwmon->scl_shift_power) * SF_POWER; <br>
+ if (value > max_mbx_power_limit) { <br>
+ value = max_mbx_power_limit; <br>
+ drm_dbg(&hwmon->xe->drm, <br>
+ "Sysfs value for ch %d %s exceeds limit;
clamped to supported maximum\n", <br>
+ channel, PWR_ATTR_TO_STR(attr)); <br>
</blockquote>
Is this debug message still needed? <br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Having this debug message helps to identify clamping from driver
due to oversized sysfs input. I think we can keep it. <br>
</blockquote>
<p><span data-teams="true"><span style="font-size: inherit;"> If
the intention is to surface clamping behavior to users or
developers, then this message seems more appropriate as a </span><code class="skipProofing">drm_info</code><span style="font-size: inherit;"> rather than </span><code class="skipProofing">drm_dbg</code><span style="font-size: inherit;">.</span></span></p>
</blockquote>
okay, I shall change to drm_info.
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:bbbc9ff9-3547-4e5c-a491-3768cbbdb820@intel.com">
<p>Regards,<br>
Badal</p>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:12626350-3e4b-4462-8401-6fbd3412f8c9@intel.com"><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">+ } <br>
+ <br>
/* Computation in 64-bits to avoid overflow. Round to
nearest. */ <br>
reg_val = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST_ULL((u64)value <<
hwmon->scl_shift_power, SF_POWER); <br>
@@ -739,9 +754,23 @@ static int
xe_hwmon_power_curr_crit_write(struct xe_hwmon *hwmon, int
channel, <br>
{ <br>
int ret; <br>
u32 uval; <br>
+ u64 max_crit_power_curr = 0; <br>
mutex_lock(&hwmon->hwmon_lock); <br>
+ /* <br>
+ * If the sysfs value exceeds the pcode mailbox cmd
POWER_SETUP_SUBCOMMAND_WRITE_I1 <br>
+ * max supported value, clamp it to the command's max
(U10.6 format). <br>
+ * This is to avoid truncation during uval calculation
below and ensure the valid power <br>
+ * limit is sent for pcode which would clamp it to
card-supported value. <br>
+ */ <br>
+ max_crit_power_curr = (POWER_SETUP_I1_DATA_MASK
>> POWER_SETUP_I1_SHIFT) * scale_factor; <br>
+ if (value > max_crit_power_curr) { <br>
+ value = max_crit_power_curr; <br>
+ drm_dbg(&hwmon->xe->drm, <br>
+ "Sysfs value for ch %d exceeds limit; clamped
to supported maximum\n", <br>
+ channel); <br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Same question here? <br>
</blockquote>
same reply as above <br>
<blockquote type="cite"> <br>
Regards, <br>
Badal <br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">+ } <br>
uval = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST_ULL(value <<
POWER_SETUP_I1_SHIFT, scale_factor); <br>
ret = xe_hwmon_pcode_write_i1(hwmon, uval); <br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>