[AMD Official Use Only - General]


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kuehling, Felix <felix.kuehl...@amd.com>
> Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2022 1:14 PM
> To: Belanger, David <david.belan...@amd.com>; amd-
> g...@lists.freedesktop.org
> Cc: Cornwall, Jay <jay.cornw...@amd.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/amdgpu: Enable SA software trap.
> 
> Am 2022-09-22 um 12:17 schrieb David Belanger:
> > Enables support for software trap for MES >= 4.
> > Adapted from implementation from Jay Cornwall.
> >
> > v2: Add IP version check in conditions.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jay Cornwall <jay.cornw...@amd.com>
> > Signed-off-by: David Belanger <david.belan...@amd.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Felix Kuehling <felix.kuehl...@amd.com>
> > ---
> >   drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/mes_v11_0.c        |   6 +-
> >   .../gpu/drm/amd/amdkfd/cwsr_trap_handler.h    | 771 +++++++++---------
> >   .../amd/amdkfd/cwsr_trap_handler_gfx10.asm    |  21 +
> >   .../gpu/drm/amd/amdkfd/kfd_int_process_v11.c  |  26 +-
> >   4 files changed, 437 insertions(+), 387 deletions(-)
> [snip]
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdkfd/kfd_int_process_v11.c
> > b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdkfd/kfd_int_process_v11.c
> > index a6fcbeeb7428..4e03d19e9333 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdkfd/kfd_int_process_v11.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdkfd/kfd_int_process_v11.c
> > @@ -358,13 +358,35 @@ static void event_interrupt_wq_v11(struct
> kfd_dev *dev,
> >                             break;
> >                     case SQ_INTERRUPT_WORD_ENCODING_ERROR:
> >                             print_sq_intr_info_error(context_id0,
> context_id1);
> > +                           sq_int_priv = REG_GET_FIELD(context_id0,
> > +
>       SQ_INTERRUPT_WORD_WAVE_CTXID0, PRIV);
> >                             sq_int_errtype =
> REG_GET_FIELD(context_id0,
> >
>       SQ_INTERRUPT_WORD_ERROR_CTXID0, TYPE);
> > -                           if (sq_int_errtype !=
> SQ_INTERRUPT_ERROR_TYPE_ILLEGAL_INST &&
> > -                               sq_int_errtype !=
> SQ_INTERRUPT_ERROR_TYPE_MEMVIOL) {
> > +
> > +                           switch (sq_int_errtype) {
> > +                           case SQ_INTERRUPT_ERROR_TYPE_EDC_FUE:
> > +                           case SQ_INTERRUPT_ERROR_TYPE_EDC_FED:
> >
>       event_interrupt_poison_consumption_v11(
> >                                                     dev, pasid,
> source_id);
> >                                     return;
> > +                           case
> SQ_INTERRUPT_ERROR_TYPE_ILLEGAL_INST:
> > +                                   /*if (!(((adev->mes.sched_version &
> AMDGPU_MES_VERSION_MASK) >= 4) &&
> > +                                             (adev-
> >ip_versions[GC_HWIP][0] >= IP_VERSION(11, 0, 0)) &&
> > +                                             (adev-
> >ip_versions[GC_HWIP][0] <= IP_VERSION(11, 0, 3)))
> > +                                           && sq_int_priv)
> > +
>       kfd_set_dbg_ev_from_interrupt(dev, pasid, -1,
> > +
>       KFD_EC_MASK(EC_QUEUE_WAVE_ILLEGAL_INSTRUCTION),
> > +                                                   NULL, 0);*/
> > +                                   return;
> > +                           case
> SQ_INTERRUPT_ERROR_TYPE_MEMVIOL:
> > +                                   /*if (!(((adev->mes.sched_version &
> AMDGPU_MES_VERSION_MASK) >= 4) &&
> > +                                             (adev-
> >ip_versions[GC_HWIP][0] >= IP_VERSION(11, 0, 0)) &&
> > +                                             (adev-
> >ip_versions[GC_HWIP][0] <= IP_VERSION(11, 0, 3)))
> > +                                           && sq_int_priv)
> > +
>       kfd_set_dbg_ev_from_interrupt(dev, pasid, -1,
> > +
>       KFD_EC_MASK(EC_QUEUE_WAVE_MEMORY_VIOLATION),
> > +                                                   NULL, 0);*/
> 
> Which branch is this for? kfd_set_dbg_ev_from_interrupt shouldn't exist on
> the upstream branch yet. That code is still under review for upstream.
> 

My understanding is that it is for branch amd-staging-drm-next to make its way 
upstream.
The code that calls that function is commented out.  There are other 
pre-existing instances in that file in amd-staging-drm-next branch that are 
commented out also with that function.
Please advise if I should remove it from the patch for now or keep it as 
commented out.

Thanks,
David B.

> Regards,
>    Felix
> 
> 
> > +                                   return;
> >                             }
> >                             break;
> >                     default:

Reply via email to