Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v4.19.x] make 'user_access_begin()' do 'access_ok()'

2020-05-12 Thread Greg KH
On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 06:13:17AM +, Ashwin H wrote: > This patch fixes CVE-2018-20669 in 4.19 tree. Ok, but what does that mean for us? You need to say why you are sending a patch, otherwise we will guess wrong. greg k-h ___ Intel-gfx mailing lis

[Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.BAT: failure for series starting with [v5,1/3] drm/dp: DRM DP helper for reading Ignore MSA from DPCD

2020-05-12 Thread Patchwork
== Series Details == Series: series starting with [v5,1/3] drm/dp: DRM DP helper for reading Ignore MSA from DPCD URL : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/77204/ State : failure == Summary == CI Bug Log - changes from CI_DRM_8471 -> Patchwork_17638 ==

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v4.19.x] make 'user_access_begin()' do 'access_ok()'

2020-05-12 Thread Greg KH
On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 07:19:21AM +0530, ashwin-h wrote: > From: Linus Torvalds > > commit 594cc251fdd0d231d342d88b2fdff4bc42fb0690 upstream. > > Originally, the rule used to be that you'd have to do access_ok() > separately, and then user_access_begin() before actually doing the > direct (opti

Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC 16/17] drm/amdgpu: gpu recovery does full modesets

2020-05-12 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 10:10 PM Kazlauskas, Nicholas wrote: > > On 2020-05-12 12:12 p.m., Daniel Vetter wrote: > > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 4:24 PM Alex Deucher wrote: > >> > >> On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 9:45 AM Daniel Vetter > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 3:29 PM Alex Deucher

[Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.CHECKPATCH: warning for series starting with [v5,1/3] drm/dp: DRM DP helper for reading Ignore MSA from DPCD

2020-05-12 Thread Patchwork
== Series Details == Series: series starting with [v5,1/3] drm/dp: DRM DP helper for reading Ignore MSA from DPCD URL : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/77204/ State : warning == Summary == $ dim checkpatch origin/drm-tip f6ad5ff374c2 drm/dp: DRM DP helper for reading Ignore MSA from

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH v5 1/3] drm/dp: DRM DP helper for reading Ignore MSA from DPCD

2020-05-12 Thread Manasi Navare
DP sink device sets the Ignore MSA bit in its DP_DOWNSTREAM_PORT_COUNT register to indicate its ability to ignore the MSA video timing parameters and its ability to support seamless video timing change over a range of timing exposed by DisplayID and EDID. This is required for the sink to indicate t

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH v5 3/3] drm/i915/dp: Expose connector VRR info via debugfs

2020-05-12 Thread Manasi Navare
From: Bhanuprakash Modem [Why] It's useful to know the min and max vrr range for IGT testing. [How] Expose the min and max vfreq for the connector via a debugfs file on the connector, "i915_vrr_info". Example usage: cat /sys/kernel/debug/dri/0/DP-1/i915_vrr_info v5: * Rename to vrr_range to ma

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH v5 2/3] drm/i915/dp: Attach and set drm connector VRR property

2020-05-12 Thread Manasi Navare
From: Aditya Swarup This function sets the VRR property for connector based on the platform support, EDID monitor range and DP sink DPCD capability of outputing video without msa timing information. v5: * Fix the vrr prop not being set in kernel (Manasi) * Unset the prop on connector disconnect

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2 2/3] drm/i915: Setup MCR steering for RCS engine workarounds

2020-05-12 Thread Matt Roper
On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 10:30:31AM -0700, Daniele Ceraolo Spurio wrote: > > > On 5/1/20 9:57 PM, Matt Roper wrote: > > Reads of multicast registers give the value associated with > > slice/subslice 0 by default unless we manually steer the reads to a > > different slice/subslice. If slice/subsli

Re: [Intel-gfx] ✓ Fi.CI.IGT: success for drm/i915/ehl: Restrict w/a 1607087056 for EHL/JSL

2020-05-12 Thread Souza, Jose
On Tue, 2020-05-12 at 20:54 +, Patchwork wrote: > == Series Details == > > Series: drm/i915/ehl: Restrict w/a 1607087056 for EHL/JSL > URL : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/77199/ > State : success > > == Summary == > > CI Bug Log - changes from CI_DRM_8470_full -> Patchwork_17636

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2 3/3] drm/i915: Add MCR ranges for gen11 and gen12

2020-05-12 Thread Daniele Ceraolo Spurio
On 5/1/20 9:57 PM, Matt Roper wrote: The multicast register ranges are slightly different for gen11 and gen12 than the table we have for gen8. This information never got updated in the bspec, so this patch is based on a spreadsheet provided by the hardware team while they work on getting the

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915/ehl: Restrict w/a 1607087056 for EHL/JSL

2020-05-12 Thread Souza, Jose
On Tue, 2020-05-12 at 11:00 -0700, Swathi Dhanavanthri wrote: > This w/a is fixed in B0 stepping and needs to be restricted for > A0 stepping only. > Bspec: 33451 > Reviewed-by: José Roberto de Souza > Signed-off-by: Swathi Dhanavanthri > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_workarounds.c | 11

[Intel-gfx] ✓ Fi.CI.IGT: success for drm/i915/ehl: Restrict w/a 1607087056 for EHL/JSL

2020-05-12 Thread Patchwork
== Series Details == Series: drm/i915/ehl: Restrict w/a 1607087056 for EHL/JSL URL : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/77199/ State : success == Summary == CI Bug Log - changes from CI_DRM_8470_full -> Patchwork_17636_full Summary --

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v28 3/6] drm/i915: Make active_pipes check skl specific

2020-05-12 Thread Lisovskiy, Stanislav
On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 06:32:38PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 04:26:53PM +0300, Lisovskiy, Stanislav wrote: > > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 04:14:33PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > > > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 03:44:06PM +0300, Lisovskiy, Stanislav wrote: > > > > On Tue, May 1

[Intel-gfx] ✓ Fi.CI.IGT: success for drm/i915: DP vswing/preemph fixes

2020-05-12 Thread Patchwork
== Series Details == Series: drm/i915: DP vswing/preemph fixes URL : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/77198/ State : success == Summary == CI Bug Log - changes from CI_DRM_8470_full -> Patchwork_17635_full Summary --- **SUCCE

Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC 16/17] drm/amdgpu: gpu recovery does full modesets

2020-05-12 Thread Kazlauskas, Nicholas
On 2020-05-12 12:12 p.m., Daniel Vetter wrote: On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 4:24 PM Alex Deucher wrote: On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 9:45 AM Daniel Vetter wrote: On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 3:29 PM Alex Deucher wrote: On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 9:17 AM Daniel Vetter wrote: On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 3:12

[Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.BAT: failure for drm/i915/gt: Transfer old virtual breadcrumbs to irq_worker (rev3)

2020-05-12 Thread Patchwork
== Series Details == Series: drm/i915/gt: Transfer old virtual breadcrumbs to irq_worker (rev3) URL : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/77191/ State : failure == Summary == CI Bug Log - changes from CI_DRM_8470 -> Patchwork_17637 Sum

[Intel-gfx] ✓ Fi.CI.BAT: success for drm/i915/ehl: Restrict w/a 1607087056 for EHL/JSL

2020-05-12 Thread Patchwork
== Series Details == Series: drm/i915/ehl: Restrict w/a 1607087056 for EHL/JSL URL : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/77199/ State : success == Summary == CI Bug Log - changes from CI_DRM_8470 -> Patchwork_17636 Summary --- *

[Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.CHECKPATCH: warning for drm/i915/ehl: Restrict w/a 1607087056 for EHL/JSL

2020-05-12 Thread Patchwork
== Series Details == Series: drm/i915/ehl: Restrict w/a 1607087056 for EHL/JSL URL : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/77199/ State : warning == Summary == $ dim checkpatch origin/drm-tip d26f548aa0bd drm/i915/ehl: Restrict w/a 1607087056 for EHL/JSL -:44: CHECK:MACRO_ARG_REUSE: Macro a

[Intel-gfx] ✓ Fi.CI.BAT: success for drm/i915: DP vswing/preemph fixes

2020-05-12 Thread Patchwork
== Series Details == Series: drm/i915: DP vswing/preemph fixes URL : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/77198/ State : success == Summary == CI Bug Log - changes from CI_DRM_8470 -> Patchwork_17635 Summary --- **SUCCESS** No

Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC 10/17] drm/amdgpu: s/GFP_KERNEL/GFP_ATOMIC in scheduler code

2020-05-12 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 7:31 PM Christian König wrote: > > Ah! > > So we can't allocate memory while scheduling anything because it could > be that memory reclaim is waiting for the scheduler to finish pushing > things to the hardware, right? Yup, that's my understanding. But like with all things

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH v4] drm/i915/gt: Transfer old virtual breadcrumbs to irq_worker

2020-05-12 Thread Chris Wilson
The second try at staging the transfer of the breadcrumb. In part one, we realised we could not simply move to the second engine as we were only holding the breadcrumb lock on the first. So in commit 6c81e21a4742 ("drm/i915/gt: Stage the transfer of the virtual breadcrumb"), we removed it from the

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915/ehl: Restrict w/a 1607087056 for EHL/JSL

2020-05-12 Thread Swathi Dhanavanthri
This w/a is fixed in B0 stepping and needs to be restricted for A0 stepping only. Bspec: 33451 Signed-off-by: Swathi Dhanavanthri --- drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_workarounds.c | 11 +++ drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h | 5 + 2 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 4 deletio

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 4/7] drm/i915: Add {preemph, voltage}_max() vfuncs

2020-05-12 Thread Ville Syrjala
From: Ville Syrjälä Different platforms have different max vswing/preemph settings. Turn that into a pair vfuncs so we can decouple intel_dp.c and intel_ddi.c further. Signed-off-by: Ville Syrjälä --- drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_ddi.c | 21 ++ drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/7] drm/i915: Fix ibx max vswing/preemph

2020-05-12 Thread Ville Syrjala
From: Ville Syrjälä IBX supports vswing level 3 and pre-emphasis level 3. Don't limit it to level 2 for those. Signed-off-by: Ville Syrjälä --- drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp.

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 5/7] drm/i915: Reverse preemph vs. voltage swing preference

2020-05-12 Thread Ville Syrjala
From: Ville Syrjälä The DP spec says: "When the combination of the requested pre-emphasis level and voltage swing exceeds the capability of a DPTX, the DPTX shall set the pre-emphasis level according to the request and use the highest voltage swing it can output with the given pre-emphasis lev

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/7] drm/i915: Fix cpt/ppt max pre-emphasis

2020-05-12 Thread Ville Syrjala
From: Ville Syrjälä cpt/ppt support pre-emphasis level 3. Let's actually declare support for it, instead of clamping things to level 2. Also tweak the if-ladder in intel_dp_voltage_max() to match intel_dp_pre_emphasis_max() to make it easier to compare them. Signed-off-by: Ville Syrjälä --- d

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 0/7] drm/i915: DP vswing/preemph fixes

2020-05-12 Thread Ville Syrjala
From: Ville Syrjälä These vswing/preemph fixes were previously posted as part of the link training crtc_state plumbing series, but since that potentially had some odd behaviour in ci I'm sending these separately. Hopefully nothing odd pops up with just these... Ville Syrjälä (7): drm/i915: Fix

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 6/7] drm/i915: Fix DP_TRAIN_MAX_{PRE_EMPHASIS, SWING}_REACHED handling

2020-05-12 Thread Ville Syrjala
From: Ville Syrjälä The DP spec says: "The transmitter shall support at least three levels of voltage swing (Levels 0, 1, and 2). If only three levels of voltage swing are supported (VOLTAGE SWING SET field (bits 1:0) are programmed to 10 (Level 2)), this bit shall be set to 1, and cleared i

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 3/7] drm/i915: Fix ivb cpu edp vswing

2020-05-12 Thread Ville Syrjala
From: Ville Syrjälä According to the DP spec supporting vswing 1 + preemph 2 is mandatory. We don't have the hw settings for that though. In order to pretend to follow the DP spec let's just select vswing 0 + preemph 2 in this case (the DP spec says to use the requested preemph in preference to t

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 7/7] drm/i915: Replace some hand rolled max()s

2020-05-12 Thread Ville Syrjala
From: Ville Syrjälä Use max() instead of hand rolling it. Signed-off-by: Ville Syrjälä --- drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp_link_training.c | 9 ++--- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp_link_training.c b/drivers/gpu/drm

[Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.BAT: failure for drm/i915/gt: Transfer old virtual breadcrumbs to irq_worker (rev2)

2020-05-12 Thread Patchwork
== Series Details == Series: drm/i915/gt: Transfer old virtual breadcrumbs to irq_worker (rev2) URL : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/77191/ State : failure == Summary == CI Bug Log - changes from CI_DRM_8470 -> Patchwork_17634 Sum

Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC 10/17] drm/amdgpu: s/GFP_KERNEL/GFP_ATOMIC in scheduler code

2020-05-12 Thread Christian König
Ah! So we can't allocate memory while scheduling anything because it could be that memory reclaim is waiting for the scheduler to finish pushing things to the hardware, right? Indeed a nice problem, haven't noticed that one. Christian. Am 12.05.20 um 18:27 schrieb Daniel Vetter: On Tue, Ma

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2 2/3] drm/i915: Setup MCR steering for RCS engine workarounds

2020-05-12 Thread Daniele Ceraolo Spurio
On 5/1/20 9:57 PM, Matt Roper wrote: Reads of multicast registers give the value associated with slice/subslice 0 by default unless we manually steer the reads to a different slice/subslice. If slice/subslice 0 are fused off in hardware, performing unsteered reads of multicast registers will

[Intel-gfx] ✓ Fi.CI.IGT: success for drm/i915/gt: Transfer old virtual breadcrumbs to irq_worker

2020-05-12 Thread Patchwork
== Series Details == Series: drm/i915/gt: Transfer old virtual breadcrumbs to irq_worker URL : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/77191/ State : success == Summary == CI Bug Log - changes from CI_DRM_8470_full -> Patchwork_17633_full

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH i-g-t] i915/gem_exec_nop: Specify timeout in milliseconds

2020-05-12 Thread Chris Wilson
Our 'headless' subtest requires fairly precise measurements to determine the impact of the dmc upon request latency. The test cannot be effective if we cannot execute requests quickly, so add a very short pre-pass to check the test requirements. For this we want to specify the baseline measurement

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH v3] drm/i915/gt: Transfer old virtual breadcrumbs to irq_worker

2020-05-12 Thread Chris Wilson
The second try at staging the transfer of the breadcrumb. In part one, we realised we could not simply move to the second engine as we were only holding the breadcrumb lock on the first. So in commit 6c81e21a4742 ("drm/i915/gt: Stage the transfer of the virtual breadcrumb"), we removed it from the

Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC 10/17] drm/amdgpu: s/GFP_KERNEL/GFP_ATOMIC in scheduler code

2020-05-12 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 6:20 PM Daniel Vetter wrote: > > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 5:56 PM Christian König > wrote: > > > > Hui what? Of hand that doesn't looks correct to me. > > It's not GFP_ATOMIC, it's just that GFP_ATOMIC is the only shotgun we > have to avoid direct reclaim. And direct reclai

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH i-g-t 2/3] i915/gem_eio: Drop redundant "health check"

2020-05-12 Thread Chris Wilson
After triggering the reset, we would ping the engines with a no-op. But we already validate the reset, so this would seem superfluous. Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson --- tests/i915/gem_eio.c | 10 -- 1 file changed, 10 deletions(-) diff --git a/tests/i915/gem_eio.c b/tests/i915/gem_eio.c i

Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC 10/17] drm/amdgpu: s/GFP_KERNEL/GFP_ATOMIC in scheduler code

2020-05-12 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 5:56 PM Christian König wrote: > > Hui what? Of hand that doesn't looks correct to me. It's not GFP_ATOMIC, it's just that GFP_ATOMIC is the only shotgun we have to avoid direct reclaim. And direct reclaim might need to call into your mmu notifier, which might need to wait

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH i-g-t 1/3] i915/pm_rpm: Drop obsolete "gem_idle" subtest

2020-05-12 Thread Chris Wilson
An obscure and very dated subtest, it's even covered by the other subtests -- if the kernel still worked in any fashion assumed by the test. Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson --- tests/i915/i915_pm_rpm.c | 12 1 file changed, 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/tests/i915/i915_pm_rpm.c b/tests/

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2] drm/i915/gt: Transfer old virtual breadcrumbs to irq_worker

2020-05-12 Thread Chris Wilson
Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2020-05-12 17:07:23) > > On 12/05/2020 16:52, Chris Wilson wrote: > > Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2020-05-12 16:17:30) > >> > >> On 12/05/2020 14:22, Chris Wilson wrote: > >>> - spin_lock(&old->breadcrumbs.irq_lock); > >>> - if (!list_empty(&ve->context.signal_link)) {

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH i-g-t 3/3] lib/i915: Discard unused gem_test_engine()

2020-05-12 Thread Chris Wilson
Last user removed, remove the definition of gem_test_engine(). Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson --- lib/i915/gem_submission.c | 49 --- lib/i915/gem_submission.h | 2 -- 2 files changed, 51 deletions(-) diff --git a/lib/i915/gem_submission.c b/lib/i915/gem_submis

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915/mst: filter out the display mode exceed sink's capability

2020-05-12 Thread Lyude Paul
On Tue, 2020-05-12 at 06:17 +, Lee, Shawn C wrote: > On Thu, May 11, 2020, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > > On Thu, May 07, 2020 at 06:46:17PM -0400, Lyude Paul wrote: > > > On Thu, 2020-04-30 at 02:37 +, Lee, Shawn C wrote: > > > > On Sat, 2020-04-25, Lyude Paul wrote: > > > > > Hi! Sorry this too

Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC 16/17] drm/amdgpu: gpu recovery does full modesets

2020-05-12 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 4:24 PM Alex Deucher wrote: > > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 9:45 AM Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 3:29 PM Alex Deucher wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 9:17 AM Daniel Vetter > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 3:12 PM Alex D

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH i-g-t] lib/gem_test_engine: Add no device reopen variant

2020-05-12 Thread Chris Wilson
Quoting Janusz Krzysztofik (2020-05-12 15:07:36) > Some tests may need to take care of closing all device file descriptors > even on subtest failure. For example, if a test would like to > effectively unload the driver module after a subtest failure, that > wouldn't be possible if any device file

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2] drm/i915/gt: Transfer old virtual breadcrumbs to irq_worker

2020-05-12 Thread Tvrtko Ursulin
On 12/05/2020 16:52, Chris Wilson wrote: Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2020-05-12 16:17:30) On 12/05/2020 14:22, Chris Wilson wrote: The second try at staging the transfer of the breadcrumb. In part one, we realised we could not simply move to the second engine as we were only holding the breadcru

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v28 5/6] drm/i915: Restrict qgv points which don't have enough bandwidth.

2020-05-12 Thread Ville Syrjälä
On Thu, May 07, 2020 at 05:45:02PM +0300, Stanislav Lisovskiy wrote: > According to BSpec 53998, we should try to > restrict qgv points, which can't provide > enough bandwidth for desired display configuration. > > Currently we are just comparing against all of > those and take minimum(worst case)

Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC 10/17] drm/amdgpu: s/GFP_KERNEL/GFP_ATOMIC in scheduler code

2020-05-12 Thread Christian König
Hui what? Of hand that doesn't looks correct to me. Why the heck should this be an atomic context? If that's correct allocating memory is the least of the problems we have. Regards, Christian. Am 12.05.20 um 10:59 schrieb Daniel Vetter: My dma-fence lockdep annotations caught an inversion be

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2] drm/i915/gt: Transfer old virtual breadcrumbs to irq_worker

2020-05-12 Thread Chris Wilson
Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2020-05-12 16:17:30) > > On 12/05/2020 14:22, Chris Wilson wrote: > > The second try at staging the transfer of the breadcrumb. In part one, > > we realised we could not simply move to the second engine as we were > > only holding the breadcrumb lock on the first. So in com

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v28 3/6] drm/i915: Make active_pipes check skl specific

2020-05-12 Thread Ville Syrjälä
On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 04:26:53PM +0300, Lisovskiy, Stanislav wrote: > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 04:14:33PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 03:44:06PM +0300, Lisovskiy, Stanislav wrote: > > > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 02:39:25PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > > > > On Thu, May 0

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2] drm/i915/gt: Transfer old virtual breadcrumbs to irq_worker

2020-05-12 Thread Tvrtko Ursulin
On 12/05/2020 14:22, Chris Wilson wrote: The second try at staging the transfer of the breadcrumb. In part one, we realised we could not simply move to the second engine as we were only holding the breadcrumb lock on the first. So in commit 6c81e21a4742 ("drm/i915/gt: Stage the transfer of the

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v28 4/6] drm/i915: Add TGL+ SAGV support

2020-05-12 Thread Ville Syrjälä
On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 06:04:45PM +0300, Lisovskiy, Stanislav wrote: > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 05:32:21PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 04:59:19PM +0300, Lisovskiy, Stanislav wrote: > > > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 04:50:46PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > > > > On Tue, May 1

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v28 4/6] drm/i915: Add TGL+ SAGV support

2020-05-12 Thread Lisovskiy, Stanislav
On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 05:32:21PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 04:59:19PM +0300, Lisovskiy, Stanislav wrote: > > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 04:50:46PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > > > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 04:41:26PM +0300, Lisovskiy, Stanislav wrote: > > > > On Tue, May 1

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v28 4/6] drm/i915: Add TGL+ SAGV support

2020-05-12 Thread Ville Syrjälä
On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 04:59:19PM +0300, Lisovskiy, Stanislav wrote: > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 04:50:46PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 04:41:26PM +0300, Lisovskiy, Stanislav wrote: > > > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 04:38:21PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > > > > On Tue, May 1

Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC 16/17] drm/amdgpu: gpu recovery does full modesets

2020-05-12 Thread Alex Deucher
On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 9:45 AM Daniel Vetter wrote: > > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 3:29 PM Alex Deucher wrote: > > > > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 9:17 AM Daniel Vetter > > wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 3:12 PM Alex Deucher > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 8:58 AM D

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915/gen12: Add aux table invalidate for all engines

2020-05-12 Thread Mika Kuoppala
Daniele Ceraolo Spurio writes: > On 5/7/20 7:20 AM, Mika Kuoppala wrote: >> All engines, exception being blitter as it does not >> care about the form, can access compressed surfaces. >> >> So we need to add forced aux table invalidates >> for those engines. >> >> v2: virtual instance masking (

[Intel-gfx] ✓ Fi.CI.BAT: success for drm/i915/gt: Transfer old virtual breadcrumbs to irq_worker

2020-05-12 Thread Patchwork
== Series Details == Series: drm/i915/gt: Transfer old virtual breadcrumbs to irq_worker URL : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/77191/ State : success == Summary == CI Bug Log - changes from CI_DRM_8470 -> Patchwork_17633 Summary --

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH i-g-t] lib/gem_test_engine: Add no device reopen variant

2020-05-12 Thread Janusz Krzysztofik
Some tests may need to take care of closing all device file descriptors even on subtest failure. For example, if a test would like to effectively unload the driver module after a subtest failure, that wouldn't be possible if any device file descriptors were kept open. That may happen if the subtes

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v28 4/6] drm/i915: Add TGL+ SAGV support

2020-05-12 Thread Lisovskiy, Stanislav
On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 04:50:46PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 04:41:26PM +0300, Lisovskiy, Stanislav wrote: > > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 04:38:21PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > > > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 04:17:34PM +0300, Lisovskiy, Stanislav wrote: > > > > On Tue, May 1

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v28 4/6] drm/i915: Add TGL+ SAGV support

2020-05-12 Thread Ville Syrjälä
On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 04:41:26PM +0300, Lisovskiy, Stanislav wrote: > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 04:38:21PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 04:17:34PM +0300, Lisovskiy, Stanislav wrote: > > > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 04:10:46PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > > > > On Tue, May 1

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v28 4/6] drm/i915: Add TGL+ SAGV support

2020-05-12 Thread Lisovskiy, Stanislav
On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 04:38:21PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 04:17:34PM +0300, Lisovskiy, Stanislav wrote: > > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 04:10:46PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > > > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 03:52:27PM +0300, Lisovskiy, Stanislav wrote: > > > > On Tue, May 1

Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC 16/17] drm/amdgpu: gpu recovery does full modesets

2020-05-12 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 3:29 PM Alex Deucher wrote: > > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 9:17 AM Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 3:12 PM Alex Deucher wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 8:58 AM Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 08:54:45AM -0400, Ale

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v28 4/6] drm/i915: Add TGL+ SAGV support

2020-05-12 Thread Ville Syrjälä
On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 04:17:34PM +0300, Lisovskiy, Stanislav wrote: > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 04:10:46PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 03:52:27PM +0300, Lisovskiy, Stanislav wrote: > > > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 03:03:26PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > > > > On Thu, May 0

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v28 3/6] drm/i915: Make active_pipes check skl specific

2020-05-12 Thread Lisovskiy, Stanislav
On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 04:14:33PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 03:44:06PM +0300, Lisovskiy, Stanislav wrote: > > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 02:39:25PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > > > On Thu, May 07, 2020 at 05:45:00PM +0300, Stanislav Lisovskiy wrote: > > > > Seems that onl

Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC 16/17] drm/amdgpu: gpu recovery does full modesets

2020-05-12 Thread Alex Deucher
On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 9:17 AM Daniel Vetter wrote: > > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 3:12 PM Alex Deucher wrote: > > > > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 8:58 AM Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 08:54:45AM -0400, Alex Deucher wrote: > > > > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 5:00 AM Daniel Vette

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2] drm/i915/gt: Transfer old virtual breadcrumbs to irq_worker

2020-05-12 Thread Chris Wilson
The second try at staging the transfer of the breadcrumb. In part one, we realised we could not simply move to the second engine as we were only holding the breadcrumb lock on the first. So in commit 6c81e21a4742 ("drm/i915/gt: Stage the transfer of the virtual breadcrumb"), we removed it from the

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v28 4/6] drm/i915: Add TGL+ SAGV support

2020-05-12 Thread Lisovskiy, Stanislav
On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 04:10:46PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 03:52:27PM +0300, Lisovskiy, Stanislav wrote: > > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 03:03:26PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > > > On Thu, May 07, 2020 at 05:45:01PM +0300, Stanislav Lisovskiy wrote: > > > > Starting from

Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC 16/17] drm/amdgpu: gpu recovery does full modesets

2020-05-12 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 3:12 PM Alex Deucher wrote: > > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 8:58 AM Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 08:54:45AM -0400, Alex Deucher wrote: > > > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 5:00 AM Daniel Vetter > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > I think it's ti

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v28 3/6] drm/i915: Make active_pipes check skl specific

2020-05-12 Thread Ville Syrjälä
On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 03:44:06PM +0300, Lisovskiy, Stanislav wrote: > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 02:39:25PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > > On Thu, May 07, 2020 at 05:45:00PM +0300, Stanislav Lisovskiy wrote: > > > Seems that only skl needs to have SAGV turned off > > > for multipipe scenarios, so l

Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC 16/17] drm/amdgpu: gpu recovery does full modesets

2020-05-12 Thread Alex Deucher
On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 8:58 AM Daniel Vetter wrote: > > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 08:54:45AM -0400, Alex Deucher wrote: > > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 5:00 AM Daniel Vetter > > wrote: > > > > > > ... > > > > > > I think it's time to stop this little exercise. > > > > > > The lockdep splat, for the r

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v28 4/6] drm/i915: Add TGL+ SAGV support

2020-05-12 Thread Ville Syrjälä
On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 03:52:27PM +0300, Lisovskiy, Stanislav wrote: > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 03:03:26PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > > On Thu, May 07, 2020 at 05:45:01PM +0300, Stanislav Lisovskiy wrote: > > > Starting from TGL we need to have a separate wm0 > > > values for SAGV and non-SAGV w

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v28 3/6] drm/i915: Make active_pipes check skl specific

2020-05-12 Thread Ville Syrjälä
On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 03:44:06PM +0300, Lisovskiy, Stanislav wrote: > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 02:39:25PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > > On Thu, May 07, 2020 at 05:45:00PM +0300, Stanislav Lisovskiy wrote: > > > Seems that only skl needs to have SAGV turned off > > > for multipipe scenarios, so l

Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC 16/17] drm/amdgpu: gpu recovery does full modesets

2020-05-12 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 08:54:45AM -0400, Alex Deucher wrote: > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 5:00 AM Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > > ... > > > > I think it's time to stop this little exercise. > > > > The lockdep splat, for the record: > > > > [ 132.583381] ===

Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC 02/17] dma-fence: basic lockdep annotations

2020-05-12 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 09:09:52AM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 10:59:29AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > diff --git a/drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence.c b/drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence.c > > index 6802125349fb..d5c0fd2efc70 100644 > > +++ b/drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence.c > > @@ -110,

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v28 4/6] drm/i915: Add TGL+ SAGV support

2020-05-12 Thread Lisovskiy, Stanislav
On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 03:03:26PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > On Thu, May 07, 2020 at 05:45:01PM +0300, Stanislav Lisovskiy wrote: > > Starting from TGL we need to have a separate wm0 > > values for SAGV and non-SAGV which affects > > how calculations are done. > > > > v2: Remove long lines > >

Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC 16/17] drm/amdgpu: gpu recovery does full modesets

2020-05-12 Thread Alex Deucher
On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 5:00 AM Daniel Vetter wrote: > > ... > > I think it's time to stop this little exercise. > > The lockdep splat, for the record: > > [ 132.583381] == > [ 132.584091] WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v28 3/6] drm/i915: Make active_pipes check skl specific

2020-05-12 Thread Lisovskiy, Stanislav
On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 02:39:25PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > On Thu, May 07, 2020 at 05:45:00PM +0300, Stanislav Lisovskiy wrote: > > Seems that only skl needs to have SAGV turned off > > for multipipe scenarios, so lets do it this way. > > It doesn't afaics. It's just someone added the check

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v28 4/6] drm/i915: Add TGL+ SAGV support

2020-05-12 Thread Ville Syrjälä
On Thu, May 07, 2020 at 05:45:01PM +0300, Stanislav Lisovskiy wrote: > Starting from TGL we need to have a separate wm0 > values for SAGV and non-SAGV which affects > how calculations are done. > > v2: Remove long lines > v3: Removed COLOR_PLANE enum references > v4, v5, v6: Fixed rebase conflict

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v28 2/6] drm/i915: Extract skl SAGV checking

2020-05-12 Thread Ville Syrjälä
On Thu, May 07, 2020 at 05:44:59PM +0300, Stanislav Lisovskiy wrote: > Introduce platform dependent SAGV checking in > combination with bandwidth state pipe SAGV mask. > > This is preparation to adding TGL support, which > requires different way of SAGV checking. > > v2, v3, v4, v5, v6: Fix rebas

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v28 3/6] drm/i915: Make active_pipes check skl specific

2020-05-12 Thread Ville Syrjälä
On Thu, May 07, 2020 at 05:45:00PM +0300, Stanislav Lisovskiy wrote: > Seems that only skl needs to have SAGV turned off > for multipipe scenarios, so lets do it this way. It doesn't afaics. It's just someone added the check for some random reason. So this should be reworded a bit. Also this isn't

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v28 1/6] drm/i915: Introduce skl_plane_wm_level accessor.

2020-05-12 Thread Ville Syrjälä
On Thu, May 07, 2020 at 05:44:58PM +0300, Stanislav Lisovskiy wrote: > For future Gen12 SAGV implementation we need to > seemlessly alter wm levels calculated, depending > on whether we are allowed to enable SAGV or not. > > So this accessor will give additional flexibility > to do that. > > Curr

Re: [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.BAT: failure for Consider DBuf bandwidth when calculating CDCLK (rev11)

2020-05-12 Thread Lisovskiy, Stanislav
Checked on skl+ before sending, older platforms now failing because of ddb_size == 0 warn.. Need to fix for older platforms as well.. Best Regards, Lisovskiy Stanislav Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo From:

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: Watch out for idling during i915_gem_evict_something

2020-05-12 Thread Chris Wilson
Quoting Mika Kuoppala (2020-05-12 11:39:31) > Chris Wilson writes: > > > i915_gem_evict_something() is charged with finding a slot within the GTT > > that we may reuse. Since our goal is not to stall, we first look for a > > slot that only overlaps idle vma. To this end, on the first pass we move

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: Watch out for idling during i915_gem_evict_something

2020-05-12 Thread Mika Kuoppala
Chris Wilson writes: > i915_gem_evict_something() is charged with finding a slot within the GTT > that we may reuse. Since our goal is not to stall, we first look for a > slot that only overlaps idle vma. To this end, on the first pass we move > any active vma to the end of the search list. Howev

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 02/20] drm/i915/gt: Couple up old virtual breadcrumb on new sibling

2020-05-12 Thread Chris Wilson
Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2020-05-12 11:12:23) > > On 12/05/2020 09:49, Chris Wilson wrote: > > Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2020-05-12 09:41:01) > >> On 11/05/2020 08:57, Chris Wilson wrote: > >>> The second try at staging the transfer of the breadcrumb. In part one, > >>> we realised we could not simpl

[Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.BAT: failure for Consider DBuf bandwidth when calculating CDCLK (rev11)

2020-05-12 Thread Patchwork
== Series Details == Series: Consider DBuf bandwidth when calculating CDCLK (rev11) URL : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/74739/ State : failure == Summary == CI Bug Log - changes from CI_DRM_8467 -> Patchwork_17632 Summary ---

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 02/20] drm/i915/gt: Couple up old virtual breadcrumb on new sibling

2020-05-12 Thread Tvrtko Ursulin
On 12/05/2020 09:49, Chris Wilson wrote: Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2020-05-12 09:41:01) On 11/05/2020 08:57, Chris Wilson wrote: The second try at staging the transfer of the breadcrumb. In part one, we realised we could not simply move to the second engine as we were only holding the breadcrum

[Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.CHECKPATCH: warning for Consider DBuf bandwidth when calculating CDCLK (rev11)

2020-05-12 Thread Patchwork
== Series Details == Series: Consider DBuf bandwidth when calculating CDCLK (rev11) URL : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/74739/ State : warning == Summary == $ dim checkpatch origin/drm-tip d3cd77d67aae drm/i915: Decouple cdclk calculation from modeset checks 65be6d7302db drm/i915: E

[Intel-gfx] [PULL] gvt-next

2020-05-12 Thread Zhenyu Wang
Hi, This includes support for ppgtt update by LRI command which gvt replaces by shadow ppgtt, another small optimization for shadow ctx and one workload destroy cleanup. Thanks -- The following changes since commit fb55c735522352704c35d899d0b253453cf0e799: drm/i915/gvt: skip populate shadow

[Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.BAT: failure for dma-fence lockdep annotations

2020-05-12 Thread Patchwork
== Series Details == Series: dma-fence lockdep annotations URL : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/77178/ State : failure == Summary == CI Bug Log - changes from CI_DRM_8467 -> Patchwork_17631 Summary --- **FAILURE** Seriou

[Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.SPARSE: warning for dma-fence lockdep annotations

2020-05-12 Thread Patchwork
== Series Details == Series: dma-fence lockdep annotations URL : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/77178/ State : warning == Summary == $ dim sparse origin/drm-tip Sparse version: v0.6.0 Commit: dma-fence: add might_sleep annotation to _wait() Okay! Commit: dma-fence: basic lockdep ann

[Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.CHECKPATCH: warning for dma-fence lockdep annotations

2020-05-12 Thread Patchwork
== Series Details == Series: dma-fence lockdep annotations URL : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/77178/ State : warning == Summary == $ dim checkpatch origin/drm-tip 761b03bd55bc dma-fence: add might_sleep annotation to _wait() -:39: WARNING:NO_AUTHOR_SIGN_OFF: Missing Signed-off-by:

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH v7 6/7] drm/i915: Adjust CDCLK accordingly to our DBuf bw needs

2020-05-12 Thread Stanislav Lisovskiy
According to BSpec max BW per slice is calculated using formula Max BW = CDCLK * 64. Currently when calculating min CDCLK we account only per plane requirements, however in order to avoid FIFO underruns we need to estimate accumulated BW consumed by all planes(ddb entries basically) residing on tha

Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC 02/17] dma-fence: basic lockdep annotations

2020-05-12 Thread Chris Wilson
Quoting Daniel Vetter (2020-05-12 10:08:47) > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 10:04:22AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > > Quoting Daniel Vetter (2020-05-12 09:59:29) > > > Design is similar to the lockdep annotations for workers, but with > > > some twists: > > > > > > - We use a read-lock for the execution

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH v4 12/38] drm: i915: fix common struct sg_table related issues

2020-05-12 Thread Marek Szyprowski
The Documentation/DMA-API-HOWTO.txt states that the dma_map_sg() function returns the number of the created entries in the DMA address space. However the subsequent calls to the dma_sync_sg_for_{device,cpu}() and dma_unmap_sg must be called with the original number of the entries passed to the dma_

Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC 02/17] dma-fence: basic lockdep annotations

2020-05-12 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 10:04:22AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > Quoting Daniel Vetter (2020-05-12 09:59:29) > > Design is similar to the lockdep annotations for workers, but with > > some twists: > > > > - We use a read-lock for the execution/worker/completion side, so that > > this explicit ann

Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC 01/17] dma-fence: add might_sleep annotation to _wait()

2020-05-12 Thread Christian König
Am 12.05.20 um 10:59 schrieb Daniel Vetter: But only for non-zero timeout, to avoid false positives. One question here is whether the might_sleep should be unconditional, or only for real timeouts. I'm not sure, so went with the more defensive option. But in the interest of locking down the cros

Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC 02/17] dma-fence: basic lockdep annotations

2020-05-12 Thread Chris Wilson
Quoting Daniel Vetter (2020-05-12 09:59:29) > Design is similar to the lockdep annotations for workers, but with > some twists: > > - We use a read-lock for the execution/worker/completion side, so that > this explicit annotation can be more liberally sprinkled around. > With read locks lockde

Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC 01/17] dma-fence: add might_sleep annotation to _wait()

2020-05-12 Thread Chris Wilson
Quoting Daniel Vetter (2020-05-12 09:59:28) > But only for non-zero timeout, to avoid false positives. > > One question here is whether the might_sleep should be unconditional, > or only for real timeouts. I'm not sure, so went with the more > defensive option. But in the interest of locking down

  1   2   >