On 20/11/2019 17:31, Ramalingam C wrote:
At TGL A0 stepping, FF_MODE2 register read back is broken, hence
disabling the WA verification.

Helper function called wa_write_masked_or_no_verify is defined for the
same purpose.

Signed-off-by: Ramalingam C <ramalinga...@intel.com>
cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursu...@linux.intel.com>
---
  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_workarounds.c | 20 +++++++++++++++++++-
  1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_workarounds.c 
b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_workarounds.c
index 93efefa205d6..1698330c6f23 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_workarounds.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_workarounds.c
@@ -160,6 +160,20 @@ wa_write_masked_or(struct i915_wa_list *wal, i915_reg_t 
reg, u32 mask,
        _wa_add(wal, &wa);
  }
+static void
+wa_write_masked_or_no_verify(struct i915_wa_list *wal, i915_reg_t reg, u32 
mask,
+                  u32 val)
+{
+       struct i915_wa wa = {
+               .reg  = reg,
+               .mask = mask,
+               .val  = val,
+               .read = 0,
+       };
+
+       _wa_add(wal, &wa);
+}
+
  static void
  wa_masked_en(struct i915_wa_list *wal, i915_reg_t reg, u32 val)
  {
@@ -578,7 +592,11 @@ static void tgl_ctx_workarounds_init(struct 
intel_engine_cs *engine,
        val = intel_uncore_read(engine->uncore, FF_MODE2);
        val &= ~FF_MODE2_TDS_TIMER_MASK;
        val |= FF_MODE2_TDS_TIMER_128;
-       wa_write_masked_or(wal, FF_MODE2, FF_MODE2_TDS_TIMER_MASK, val);
+       if (IS_TGL_REVID(engine->uncore->i915, 0, TGL_REVID_A0))

There is engine->i915.

+               wa_write_masked_or_no_verify(wal, FF_MODE2,
+                                            FF_MODE2_TDS_TIMER_MASK, val);
+       else
+               wa_write_masked_or(wal, FF_MODE2, FF_MODE2_TDS_TIMER_MASK, val);

You did not think suggested alternative where read mask is directly passed in would work better? It would read a bit more compact:

  __wa_write_masked_or(..., IS_TGL_REVID(..) ? 0 : val)

Up to you what you prefer, I guess the explicit _no_verify brings some self-documenting benefits.

Also, do you think there is value in having two patches instead of just squashing into one? I would be tempted to squash.

Regards,

Tvrtko

  }
static void

_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

Reply via email to