On Tue, Mar 08, 2022 at 10:17:42PM +0530, Balasubramani Vivekanandan wrote:
This patch is continuation of the effort to move all pointers in i915,
which at any point may be pointing to device memory or system memory, to
iosys_map interface.
More details about the need of this change is explained in the patch
series which initiated this task
https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/99711/
This patch converts all access to the lrc_desc through iosys_map
interfaces.
Cc: Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demar...@intel.com>
Cc: John Harrison <john.c.harri...@intel.com>
Cc: Matthew Brost <matthew.br...@intel.com>
Cc: Umesh Nerlige Ramappa <umesh.nerlige.rama...@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Balasubramani Vivekanandan <balasubramani.vivekanan...@intel.com>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc.h | 2 +-
.../gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.c | 68 ++++++++++++-------
2 files changed, 43 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc.h
b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc.h
index e439e6c1ac8b..cbbc24dbaf0f 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc.h
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc.h
@@ -168,7 +168,7 @@ struct intel_guc {
/** @lrc_desc_pool: object allocated to hold the GuC LRC descriptor
pool */
struct i915_vma *lrc_desc_pool;
/** @lrc_desc_pool_vaddr: contents of the GuC LRC descriptor pool */
- void *lrc_desc_pool_vaddr;
+ struct iosys_map lrc_desc_pool_vaddr;
s/_vaddr/_map/ for consistency with intel_guc_ads
/**
* @context_lookup: used to resolve intel_context from guc_id, if a
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.c
index 9ec03234d2c2..84b17ded886a 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.c
@@ -467,13 +467,14 @@ static u32 *get_wq_pointer(struct guc_process_desc *desc,
return &__get_parent_scratch(ce)->wq[ce->parallel.guc.wqi_tail /
sizeof(u32)];
}
-static struct guc_lrc_desc *__get_lrc_desc(struct intel_guc *guc, u32 index)
+static void __write_lrc_desc(struct intel_guc *guc, u32 index,
+ struct guc_lrc_desc *desc)
{
- struct guc_lrc_desc *base = guc->lrc_desc_pool_vaddr;
+ unsigned int size = sizeof(struct guc_lrc_desc);
GEM_BUG_ON(index >= GUC_MAX_CONTEXT_ID);
- return &base[index];
+ iosys_map_memcpy_to(&guc->lrc_desc_pool_vaddr, index * size, desc,
size);
you are not using size anywhere else, so it would be preferred to keep the size
calculation inside this call.
iosys_map_memcpy_to(&guc->lrc_desc_pool_vaddr, index * size, desc,
sizeof(*desc));
which also avoids accidentally using the wrong struct if we ever change
the type of what we are copying.
}
static inline struct intel_context *__get_context(struct intel_guc *guc, u32 id)
@@ -489,20 +490,28 @@ static int guc_lrc_desc_pool_create(struct intel_guc *guc)
{
u32 size;
int ret;
+ void *addr;
vaddr for consistency
size = PAGE_ALIGN(sizeof(struct guc_lrc_desc) *
GUC_MAX_CONTEXT_ID);
ret = intel_guc_allocate_and_map_vma(guc, size, &guc->lrc_desc_pool,
- (void
**)&guc->lrc_desc_pool_vaddr);
+ &addr);
+
if (ret)
return ret;
+ if (i915_gem_object_is_lmem(guc->lrc_desc_pool->obj))
+ iosys_map_set_vaddr_iomem(&guc->lrc_desc_pool_vaddr,
+ (void __iomem *)addr);
+ else
+ iosys_map_set_vaddr(&guc->lrc_desc_pool_vaddr, addr);
+
return 0;
}
static void guc_lrc_desc_pool_destroy(struct intel_guc *guc)
{
- guc->lrc_desc_pool_vaddr = NULL;
+ iosys_map_clear(&guc->lrc_desc_pool_vaddr);
i915_vma_unpin_and_release(&guc->lrc_desc_pool, I915_VMA_RELEASE_MAP);
}
@@ -513,9 +522,11 @@ static inline bool guc_submission_initialized(struct
intel_guc *guc)
static inline void _reset_lrc_desc(struct intel_guc *guc, u32 id)
{
- struct guc_lrc_desc *desc = __get_lrc_desc(guc, id);
+ unsigned int size = sizeof(struct guc_lrc_desc);
- memset(desc, 0, sizeof(*desc));
+ GEM_BUG_ON(id >= GUC_MAX_CONTEXT_ID);
+
+ iosys_map_memset(&guc->lrc_desc_pool_vaddr, id * size, 0, size);
ditto. And maybe move it be close to __write_lrc_desc. I don't really
understand the difference here with 1 underscore vs the 2. Maybe as a
follow up just reconcile them?
The rest I left to another reply to focus on what may be the only
real issue I see in this patch and to get feedback from other people.
thanks
Lucas De Marchi
