[Nouveau] [PATCH 7/9] fb/ramnv50: Script changes for G94 and up

[Ben Skeggs]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 09/30/2015 09:23 AM, Roy Spliet wrote:
> 10053c is not even read on some cards, and I have no idea exactly
> what the criteria are. Likely NVIDIA pre-scans the VBIOS and in
> their driver disables all features that are never used. The
> practical effect should be the same as this implementation though.
I haven't fully reviewed the series properly yet, but wanted to put my
two cents worth in here.

If this works like it does on Kepler, you're going to get bitten here
if you don't do this correctly.

NVIDIA scans the full memory configurations for every "rammap" entry
(yes, even the ones that can never be referenced by the perf table)
and where all values are the same (doesn't matter if they're all on or
all off, just that they're the same) in every entry, they don't touch
that particular part of the configuration.

Depending on what DEVINIT did, this can leave something either enabled
or disabled, you don't know which, you're just supposed to just not
touch it.

I tried to ignore this on Kepler initially, but eventually got bitten
by it and had to implement it properly (gk104_ram_ctor_data() handles
this for the most part).

I'd *strongly* recommend you verify if the behaviour is the same on
these boards, and implement it if it is.

Ben.

> 
> Signed-off-by: Roy Spliet <rspliet at eclipso.eu> Tested-by: Pierre
> Moreau <pierre.morrow at free.fr> --- 
> drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvkm/subdev/fb/ramnv50.c | 36
> ++++++++++++++++++++---- 1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 6
> deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvkm/subdev/fb/ramnv50.c
> b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvkm/subdev/fb/ramnv50.c index
> 1c6ae6b..651b74a 100644 ---
> a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvkm/subdev/fb/ramnv50.c +++
> b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvkm/subdev/fb/ramnv50.c @@ -302,6 +302,9
> @@ nv50_ram_calc(struct nvkm_ram *base, u32 freq) return ret; }
> 
> +	if (subdev->device->chipset <= 0x96 &&
> !next->bios.ramcfg_00_03_02) +		ram_mask(hwsq, 0x100710,
> 0x00000200, 0x00000000); + /* Always disable this bit during
> reclock */ ram_mask(hwsq, 0x100200, 0x00000800, 0x00000000);
> 
> @@ -353,8 +356,11 @@ nv50_ram_calc(struct nvkm_ram *base, u32
> freq) next->bios.rammap_00_16_40 << 14); ram_mask(hwsq, 0x00400c,
> 0x0000ffff, (N1 << 8) | M1); ram_mask(hwsq, 0x004008, 0x91ff0000,
> r004008); -	if (subdev->device->chipset >= 0x96) + +	/* XXX: GDDR3
> only? */ +	if (subdev->device->chipset >= 0x92) ram_wr32(hwsq,
> 0x100da0, r100da0); + nv50_ram_gpio(hwsq, 0x18,
> !next->bios.ramcfg_FBVDDQ); ram_nsec(hwsq, 64000); /*XXX*/ 
> ram_nsec(hwsq, 32000); /*XXX*/ @@ -397,19 +403,33 @@
> nv50_ram_calc(struct nvkm_ram *base, u32 freq) ram_mask(hwsq,
> 0x100200, 0x00001000, !next->bios.ramcfg_00_04_02 << 12);
> 
> /* XXX: A lot of this could be "chipset"/"ram type" specific stuff
> */ -	unk710  = ram_rd32(hwsq, 0x100710) & ~0x00000101; +	unk710  =
> ram_rd32(hwsq, 0x100710) & ~0x00000100; unk714  = ram_rd32(hwsq,
> 0x100714) & ~0xf0000020; unk718  = ram_rd32(hwsq, 0x100718) &
> ~0x00000100; unk71c  = ram_rd32(hwsq, 0x10071c) & ~0x00000100; +	if
> (subdev->device->chipset <= 0x96) { +		unk710 &= ~0x0000006e; +
> unk714 &= ~0x00000100; + +		if (!next->bios.ramcfg_00_03_08) +
> unk710 |= 0x00000060; +		if (!next->bios.ramcfg_FBVDDQ) +			unk714
> |= 0x00000100; +		if ( next->bios.ramcfg_00_04_04) +			unk710 |=
> 0x0000000e; +	} else { +		unk710 &= ~0x00000001; + +		if
> (!next->bios.ramcfg_00_03_08) +			unk710 |= 0x00000001; +	}
> 
> if ( next->bios.ramcfg_00_03_01) unk71c |= 0x00000100; if (
> next->bios.ramcfg_00_03_02) unk710 |= 0x00000100; -	if
> (!next->bios.ramcfg_00_03_08) { -		unk710 |= 0x1; -		unk714 |=
> 0x20; -	} +	if (!next->bios.ramcfg_00_03_08) +		unk714 |=
> 0x00000020; if ( next->bios.ramcfg_00_04_04) unk714 |= 0x70000000; 
> if ( next->bios.ramcfg_00_04_20) @@ -420,6 +440,8 @@
> nv50_ram_calc(struct nvkm_ram *base, u32 freq) ram_mask(hwsq,
> 0x100718, 0xffffffff, unk718); ram_mask(hwsq, 0x100710, 0xffffffff,
> unk710);
> 
> +	/* XXX: G94 does not even test these regs in trace. Harmless we
> do it, + 	 * but why is it omitted? */ if
> (next->bios.rammap_00_16_20) { ram_wr32(hwsq, 0x1005a0,
> next->bios.ramcfg_00_07 << 16 | next->bios.ramcfg_00_06 << 8 | @@
> -450,6 +472,8 @@ nv50_ram_calc(struct nvkm_ram *base, u32 freq) 
> ram_mask(hwsq, 0x004008, 0x00004000, 0x00000000); if
> (next->bios.ramcfg_00_03_02) ram_mask(hwsq, 0x10021c, 0x00010000,
> 0x00010000); +	if (subdev->device->chipset <= 0x96 &&
> next->bios.ramcfg_00_03_02) +		ram_mask(hwsq, 0x100710, 0x00000200,
> 0x00000200);
> 
> return 0; }
>