[Nouveau] [PATCH] drm/nouveau: fix ltcg memory initialization after suspend

[Maarten Lankhorst]

Op 12-08-13 18:19, Ilia Mirkin schreef:
> On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 6:43 AM, Maarten Lankhorst
> <maarten.lankhorst at canonical.com> wrote:
>> Some registers were not initialized in init, this causes them to be
>> uninitialized after suspend.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst at canonical.com>
>> ---
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/core/subdev/ltcg/nvc0.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/core/subdev/ltcg/nvc0.c
>> index bcca883..7288940 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/core/subdev/ltcg/nvc0.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/core/subdev/ltcg/nvc0.c
>> @@ -30,8 +30,9 @@ struct nvc0_ltcg_priv {
>>         struct nouveau_ltcg base;
>>         u32 part_nr;
>>         u32 subp_nr;
>> -       struct nouveau_mm tags;
>>         u32 num_tags;
>> +       u32 tag_base;
>> +       struct nouveau_mm tags;
>>         struct nouveau_mm_node *tag_ram;
>>  };
>>
>> @@ -117,10 +118,6 @@ nvc0_ltcg_init_tag_ram(struct nouveau_fb *pfb, struct nvc0_ltcg_priv *priv)
>>         u32 tag_size, tag_margin, tag_align;
>>         int ret;
>>
>> -       nv_wr32(priv, 0x17e8d8, priv->part_nr);
>> -       if (nv_device(pfb)->card_type >= NV_E0)
>> -               nv_wr32(priv, 0x17e000, priv->part_nr);
>> -
>>         /* tags for 1/4 of VRAM should be enough (8192/4 per GiB of VRAM) */
>>         priv->num_tags = (pfb->ram->size >> 17) / 4;
>>         if (priv->num_tags > (1 << 17))
>> @@ -152,7 +149,7 @@ nvc0_ltcg_init_tag_ram(struct nouveau_fb *pfb, struct nvc0_ltcg_priv *priv)
>>                 tag_base += tag_align - 1;
>>                 ret = do_div(tag_base, tag_align);
>>
>> -               nv_wr32(priv, 0x17e8d4, tag_base);
>> +               priv->tag_base = tag_base;
>>         }
>>         ret = nouveau_mm_init(&priv->tags, 0, priv->num_tags, 1);
>>
>> @@ -182,8 +179,6 @@ nvc0_ltcg_ctor(struct nouveau_object *parent, struct nouveau_object *engine,
>>         }
>>         priv->subp_nr = nv_rd32(priv, 0x17e8dc) >> 28;
>>
>> -       nv_mask(priv, 0x17e820, 0x00100000, 0x00000000); /* INTR_EN &= ~0x10 */
>> -
>>         ret = nvc0_ltcg_init_tag_ram(pfb, priv);
>>         if (ret)
>>                 return ret;
>> @@ -209,13 +204,36 @@ nvc0_ltcg_dtor(struct nouveau_object *object)
>>         nouveau_ltcg_destroy(ltcg);
>>  }
>>
>> +int
>> +nvc0_ltcg_init(struct nouveau_object *object)
> This should probably be a static int.
Yeah.
>> +{
>> +       struct nouveau_ltcg *ltcg = (struct nouveau_ltcg *)object;
>> +       struct nvc0_ltcg_priv *priv = (struct nvc0_ltcg_priv *)ltcg;
>> +       struct nouveau_fb *pfb = nouveau_fb(ltcg->base.base.parent);
> Hm, it's all a bit confusing, but wouldn't nouveau_fb(ltcg) (or priv)
> work just fine here? nv_device looks at ->parent... but perhaps not
> hard enough :)
I was copying the assignments from the dtor. I guess it could be cleaned up.

>> +       int ret;
>> +
>> +       ret = nouveau_subdev_init(&pfb->base);
> Should this be &ltcg->base? (Or nouveau_ltcg_init(ltcg) for consistency...)
Ugh you're right. Thanks for catching it.
>
>> +       if (ret)
>> +               return ret;
>> +
>> +       nv_mask(priv, 0x17e820, 0x00100000, 0x00000000); /* INTR_EN &= ~0x10 */
>> +
>> +       nv_wr32(priv, 0x17e8d8, priv->part_nr);
>> +       if (nv_device(pfb)->card_type >= NV_E0)
>> +               nv_wr32(priv, 0x17e000, priv->part_nr);
>> +
>> +       nv_wr32(priv, 0x17e8d4, priv->tag_base);
>> +
>> +       return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>>  struct nouveau_oclass
>>  nvc0_ltcg_oclass = {
>>         .handle = NV_SUBDEV(LTCG, 0xc0),
>>         .ofuncs = &(struct nouveau_ofuncs) {
>>                 .ctor = nvc0_ltcg_ctor,
>>                 .dtor = nvc0_ltcg_dtor,
>> -               .init = _nouveau_ltcg_init,
>> +               .init = nvc0_ltcg_init,
>>                 .fini = _nouveau_ltcg_fini,
>>         },
>>  };
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Nouveau mailing list
>> Nouveau at lists.freedesktop.org
>> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/nouveau