Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 23 Nov 2023 16:14:12 +0100 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] drm/panfrost: Ignore core_mask for poweroff and sync interrupts | From | AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <> |
| |
Il 23/11/23 14:51, Boris Brezillon ha scritto: > On Thu, 23 Nov 2023 14:24:57 +0100 > AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@collabora.com> > wrote: > >>>> >>>> So, while I agree that it'd be slightly more readable as a diff if those >>>> were two different commits I do have reasons against splitting..... >>> >>> If we just need a quick fix to avoid PWRTRANS interrupts from kicking >>> in when we power-off the cores, I think we'd be better off dropping >>> GPU_IRQ_POWER_CHANGED[_ALL] from the value we write to GPU_INT_MASK >>> at [re]initialization time, and then have a separate series that fixes >>> the problem more generically. >>> >> >> But that didn't work: >> https://lore.kernel.org/all/d95259b8-10cf-4ded-866c-47cbd2a44f84@linaro.org/ > > I meant, your 'ignore-core_mask' fix + the > 'drop GPU_IRQ_POWER_CHANGED[_ALL] in GPU_INT_MASK' one. > > So, > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/4c73f67e-174c-497e-85a5-cb053ce657cb@collabora.com/ > + > https://lore.kernel.org/all/d95259b8-10cf-4ded-866c-47cbd2a44f84@linaro.org/ > >> >> >> ...while this "full" solution worked: >> https://lore.kernel.org/all/39e9514b-087c-42eb-8d0e-f75dc620e954@linaro.org/ >> >> https://lore.kernel.org/all/5b24cc73-23aa-4837-abb9-b6d138b46426@linaro.org/ >> >> >> ...so this *is* a "quick fix" already... :-) > > It's a half-baked solution for the missing irq-synchronization-on-suspend > issue IMHO. I understand why you want it all in one patch that can serve > as a fix for 123b431f8a5c ("drm/panfrost: Really power off GPU cores in > panfrost_gpu_power_off()"), which is why I'm suggesting to go for an > even simpler diff (see below), and then fully address the > irq-synhronization-on-suspend issue in a follow-up patchset. > > --->8--- > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/panfrost/panfrost_gpu.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/panfrost/panfrost_gpu.c > index 09f5e1563ebd..6e2d7650cc2b 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/panfrost/panfrost_gpu.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/panfrost/panfrost_gpu.c > @@ -78,7 +78,10 @@ int panfrost_gpu_soft_reset(struct panfrost_device *pfdev) > } > > gpu_write(pfdev, GPU_INT_CLEAR, GPU_IRQ_MASK_ALL); > - gpu_write(pfdev, GPU_INT_MASK, GPU_IRQ_MASK_ALL); > + gpu_write(pfdev, GPU_INT_MASK, > + GPU_IRQ_MASK_ERROR | > + GPU_IRQ_PERFCNT_SAMPLE_COMPLETED | > + GPU_IRQ_CLEAN_CACHES_COMPLETED); >
...but if we do that, the next patch(es) will contain a partial revert of this commit, putting back this to gpu_write(pfdev, GPU_INT_MASK, GPU_IRQ_MASK_ALL)...
I'm not sure that it's worth changing this like that, then changing it back right after :-\
Anyway, if anyone else agrees with doing it and then partially revert, I have no issues going with this one instead; what I care about ultimately is resolving the regression ASAP :-)
Cheers, Angelo
> /* > * All in-flight jobs should have released their cycle > @@ -425,11 +428,10 @@ void panfrost_gpu_power_on(struct panfrost_device *pfdev) > > void panfrost_gpu_power_off(struct panfrost_device *pfdev) > { > - u64 core_mask = panfrost_get_core_mask(pfdev); > int ret; > u32 val; > > - gpu_write(pfdev, SHADER_PWROFF_LO, pfdev->features.shader_present & core_mask); > + gpu_write(pfdev, SHADER_PWROFF_LO, pfdev->features.shader_present); > ret = readl_relaxed_poll_timeout(pfdev->iomem + SHADER_PWRTRANS_LO, > val, !val, 1, 1000); > if (ret) > @@ -441,7 +443,7 @@ void panfrost_gpu_power_off(struct panfrost_device *pfdev) > if (ret) > dev_err(pfdev->dev, "tiler power transition timeout"); > > - gpu_write(pfdev, L2_PWROFF_LO, pfdev->features.l2_present & core_mask); > + gpu_write(pfdev, L2_PWROFF_LO, pfdev->features.l2_present); > ret = readl_poll_timeout(pfdev->iomem + L2_PWRTRANS_LO, > val, !val, 0, 1000); > if (ret) > >
| |