| Message ID | 20180228184225.43722-1-piotr.piorkowski@intel.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On 28/02/18 10:42, Piotr Piórkowski wrote: > In the i915 driver, there is a function, intel_guc_init_params(), > which initializes the GuC parameter block which is passed into > the GuC. There is parameter GUC_CTL_DEVICE_INFO with values > GfxGtType and GfxCoreFamily unused by GuC. > > This patch remove GUC_CTL_DEVICE_INFO with GfxGtType and > GfxCoreFamily parameters and also unnecessary functions > get_gt_type() and get_core_family(). > Hi, Looking at the fw code, you're partially right, GfxGtType is ignored... but GfxCoreFamily isn't. If you don't pass a known GfxCoreFamily, SLPC will be disabled (enabling SLPC is in some manager's wish list). Also it seems nobody remembered to add GUC_CORE_FAMILY_GEN10 for CNL. > Signed-off-by: Piotr Piórkowski <piotr.piorkowski@intel.com> > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_params.h | 2 +- > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc.c | 24 ------------------------ > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_fwif.h | 4 ---- > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uc.c | 2 ++ > 4 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_params.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_params.h > index 430f5f9d0ff4..3deae1e22974 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_params.h > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_params.h > @@ -47,7 +47,7 @@ struct drm_printer; > param(int, disable_power_well, -1) \ > param(int, enable_ips, 1) \ > param(int, invert_brightness, 0) \ > - param(int, enable_guc, 0) \ > + param(int, enable_guc, -1) \ This shouldn't be part of your patch, enable guc submission in a 2nd patch, for example: [PATCH 2/2] HAX: Enable GuC submission for CI > param(int, guc_log_level, 0) \ > param(char *, guc_firmware_path, NULL) \ > param(char *, huc_firmware_path, NULL) \ > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc.c > index 21140ccd7a97..5f6d84251830 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc.c > @@ -200,26 +200,6 @@ void intel_guc_fini(struct intel_guc *guc) > guc_shared_data_destroy(guc); > } > > -static u32 get_gt_type(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv) > -{ > - /* XXX: GT type based on PCI device ID? field seems unused by fw */ > - return 0; > -} > - > -static u32 get_core_family(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv) > -{ > - u32 gen = INTEL_GEN(dev_priv); > - > - switch (gen) { > - case 9: > - return GUC_CORE_FAMILY_GEN9; > - > - default: > - MISSING_CASE(gen); > - return GUC_CORE_FAMILY_UNKNOWN; > - } > -} > - > static u32 get_log_verbosity_flags(void) > { > if (i915_modparams.guc_log_level > 0) { > @@ -246,10 +226,6 @@ void intel_guc_init_params(struct intel_guc *guc) > > memset(params, 0, sizeof(params)); > > - params[GUC_CTL_DEVICE_INFO] |= > - (get_gt_type(dev_priv) << GUC_CTL_GT_TYPE_SHIFT) | > - (get_core_family(dev_priv) << GUC_CTL_CORE_FAMILY_SHIFT); > - > /* > * GuC ARAT increment is 10 ns. GuC default scheduler quantum is one > * second. This ARAR is calculated by: > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_fwif.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_fwif.h > index 6a10aa6f04d3..0f381de44722 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_fwif.h > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_fwif.h > @@ -81,10 +81,6 @@ > #define GUC_CTL_ARAT_HIGH 1 > #define GUC_CTL_ARAT_LOW 2 > > -#define GUC_CTL_DEVICE_INFO 3 > -#define GUC_CTL_GT_TYPE_SHIFT 0 > -#define GUC_CTL_CORE_FAMILY_SHIFT 7 > - > #define GUC_CTL_LOG_PARAMS 4 > #define GUC_LOG_VALID (1 << 0) > #define GUC_LOG_NOTIFY_ON_HALF_FULL (1 << 1) > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uc.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uc.c > index 9f1bac6398fb..b48056fb769d 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uc.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uc.c > @@ -63,6 +63,8 @@ static int __get_platform_enable_guc(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv) > enable_guc |= ENABLE_GUC_LOAD_HUC; > > /* Any platform specific fine-tuning can be done here */ > + if (boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_HYPERVISOR)) > + enable_guc = 0; This is also part of [PATCH 2/2] HAX: Enable GuC submission for CI > > return enable_guc; > } > -Michel
On 28/02/18 12:26, Michel Thierry wrote: > On 28/02/18 10:42, Piotr Piórkowski wrote: >> In the i915 driver, there is a function, intel_guc_init_params(), >> which initializes the GuC parameter block which is passed into >> the GuC. There is parameter GUC_CTL_DEVICE_INFO with values >> GfxGtType and GfxCoreFamily unused by GuC. >> >> This patch remove GUC_CTL_DEVICE_INFO with GfxGtType and >> GfxCoreFamily parameters and also unnecessary functions >> get_gt_type() and get_core_family(). >> > > Hi, > > Looking at the fw code, you're partially right, GfxGtType is ignored... > but GfxCoreFamily isn't. > Unless whoever wrote the fw was smart enough to forget to call the function that is reading GfxCoreFamily... I didn't count on that. So yes, guc couldn't care less about what value we put in GfxCoreFamily. Then I would also remove the defines from intel_guc_fwif.h: --#define GUC_CORE_FAMILY_GEN9 12 --#define GUC_CORE_FAMILY_UNKNOWN 0x7fffffff -Michel > If you don't pass a known GfxCoreFamily, SLPC will be disabled (enabling > SLPC is in some manager's wish list). Also it seems nobody remembered to > add GUC_CORE_FAMILY_GEN10 for CNL. > >> Signed-off-by: Piotr Piórkowski <piotr.piorkowski@intel.com> >> --- >> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_params.h | 2 +- >> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc.c | 24 ------------------------ >> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_fwif.h | 4 ---- >> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uc.c | 2 ++ >> 4 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_params.h >> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_params.h >> index 430f5f9d0ff4..3deae1e22974 100644 >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_params.h >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_params.h >> @@ -47,7 +47,7 @@ struct drm_printer; >> param(int, disable_power_well, -1) \ >> param(int, enable_ips, 1) \ >> param(int, invert_brightness, 0) \ >> - param(int, enable_guc, 0) \ >> + param(int, enable_guc, -1) \ > > This shouldn't be part of your patch, enable guc submission in a 2nd > patch, for example: [PATCH 2/2] HAX: Enable GuC submission for CI > >> param(int, guc_log_level, 0) \ >> param(char *, guc_firmware_path, NULL) \ >> param(char *, huc_firmware_path, NULL) \ >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc.c >> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc.c >> index 21140ccd7a97..5f6d84251830 100644 >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc.c >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc.c >> @@ -200,26 +200,6 @@ void intel_guc_fini(struct intel_guc *guc) >> guc_shared_data_destroy(guc); >> } >> -static u32 get_gt_type(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv) >> -{ >> - /* XXX: GT type based on PCI device ID? field seems unused by fw */ >> - return 0; >> -} >> - >> -static u32 get_core_family(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv) >> -{ >> - u32 gen = INTEL_GEN(dev_priv); >> - >> - switch (gen) { >> - case 9: >> - return GUC_CORE_FAMILY_GEN9; >> - >> - default: >> - MISSING_CASE(gen); >> - return GUC_CORE_FAMILY_UNKNOWN; >> - } >> -} >> - >> static u32 get_log_verbosity_flags(void) >> { >> if (i915_modparams.guc_log_level > 0) { >> @@ -246,10 +226,6 @@ void intel_guc_init_params(struct intel_guc *guc) >> memset(params, 0, sizeof(params)); >> - params[GUC_CTL_DEVICE_INFO] |= >> - (get_gt_type(dev_priv) << GUC_CTL_GT_TYPE_SHIFT) | >> - (get_core_family(dev_priv) << GUC_CTL_CORE_FAMILY_SHIFT); >> - >> /* >> * GuC ARAT increment is 10 ns. GuC default scheduler quantum is >> one >> * second. This ARAR is calculated by: >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_fwif.h >> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_fwif.h >> index 6a10aa6f04d3..0f381de44722 100644 >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_fwif.h >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_fwif.h >> @@ -81,10 +81,6 @@ >> #define GUC_CTL_ARAT_HIGH 1 >> #define GUC_CTL_ARAT_LOW 2 >> -#define GUC_CTL_DEVICE_INFO 3 >> -#define GUC_CTL_GT_TYPE_SHIFT 0 >> -#define GUC_CTL_CORE_FAMILY_SHIFT 7 >> - >> #define GUC_CTL_LOG_PARAMS 4 >> #define GUC_LOG_VALID (1 << 0) >> #define GUC_LOG_NOTIFY_ON_HALF_FULL (1 << 1) >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uc.c >> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uc.c >> index 9f1bac6398fb..b48056fb769d 100644 >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uc.c >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uc.c >> @@ -63,6 +63,8 @@ static int __get_platform_enable_guc(struct >> drm_i915_private *dev_priv) >> enable_guc |= ENABLE_GUC_LOAD_HUC; >> /* Any platform specific fine-tuning can be done here */ >> + if (boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_HYPERVISOR)) >> + enable_guc = 0; > > This is also part of [PATCH 2/2] HAX: Enable GuC submission for CI > >> return enable_guc; >> } >> > > -Michel
Quoting Michel Thierry (2018-02-28 22:07:51) > On 28/02/18 12:26, Michel Thierry wrote: > > On 28/02/18 10:42, Piotr Piórkowski wrote: > >> In the i915 driver, there is a function, intel_guc_init_params(), > >> which initializes the GuC parameter block which is passed into > >> the GuC. There is parameter GUC_CTL_DEVICE_INFO with values > >> GfxGtType and GfxCoreFamily unused by GuC. > >> > >> This patch remove GUC_CTL_DEVICE_INFO with GfxGtType and > >> GfxCoreFamily parameters and also unnecessary functions > >> get_gt_type() and get_core_family(). > >> > > > > Hi, > > > > Looking at the fw code, you're partially right, GfxGtType is ignored... > > but GfxCoreFamily isn't. > > > > Unless whoever wrote the fw was smart enough to forget to call the > function that is reading GfxCoreFamily... I didn't count on that. Is the intention to use GfxCoreFamily documented, i.e. are they expecting it part of the interface and may re-instantiate the check "because it was always supposed to exist" in some future version? -Chris
On 3/1/2018 1:32 PM, Chris Wilson wrote: > Quoting Michel Thierry (2018-02-28 22:07:51) >> On 28/02/18 12:26, Michel Thierry wrote: >>> On 28/02/18 10:42, Piotr Piórkowski wrote: >>>> In the i915 driver, there is a function, intel_guc_init_params(), >>>> which initializes the GuC parameter block which is passed into >>>> the GuC. There is parameter GUC_CTL_DEVICE_INFO with values >>>> GfxGtType and GfxCoreFamily unused by GuC. >>>> >>>> This patch remove GUC_CTL_DEVICE_INFO with GfxGtType and >>>> GfxCoreFamily parameters and also unnecessary functions >>>> get_gt_type() and get_core_family(). >>>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Looking at the fw code, you're partially right, GfxGtType is ignored... >>> but GfxCoreFamily isn't. >>> >> Unless whoever wrote the fw was smart enough to forget to call the >> function that is reading GfxCoreFamily... I didn't count on that. > Is the intention to use GfxCoreFamily documented, i.e. are they > expecting it part of the interface and may re-instantiate the check > "because it was always supposed to exist" in some future version? Usage of GfxCoreFamily is only in SLPC and for platform specific initialization and might be removed in future interfaces. If needed, we can add as part of SLPC patches. > -Chris > _______________________________________________ > Intel-gfx mailing list > Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
On Thu, 2018-03-01 at 17:35 +0530, Sagar Arun Kamble wrote: > > On 3/1/2018 1:32 PM, Chris Wilson wrote: > > > > Quoting Michel Thierry (2018-02-28 22:07:51) > > > > > > On 28/02/18 12:26, Michel Thierry wrote: > > > > > > > > On 28/02/18 10:42, Piotr Piórkowski wrote: > > > > > > > > > > In the i915 driver, there is a function, > > > > > intel_guc_init_params(), > > > > > which initializes the GuC parameter block which is passed > > > > > into > > > > > the GuC. There is parameter GUC_CTL_DEVICE_INFO with values > > > > > GfxGtType and GfxCoreFamily unused by GuC. > > > > > > > > > > This patch remove GUC_CTL_DEVICE_INFO with GfxGtType and > > > > > GfxCoreFamily parameters and also unnecessary functions > > > > > get_gt_type() and get_core_family(). > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > Looking at the fw code, you're partially right, GfxGtType is > > > > ignored... > > > > but GfxCoreFamily isn't. > > > > > > > Unless whoever wrote the fw was smart enough to forget to call > > > the > > > function that is reading GfxCoreFamily... I didn't count on that. > > Is the intention to use GfxCoreFamily documented, i.e. are they > > expecting it part of the interface and may re-instantiate the check > > "because it was always supposed to exist" in some future version? > Usage of GfxCoreFamily is only in SLPC and for platform specific > initialization and might be removed in future interfaces. > If needed, we can add as part of SLPC patches. Michel and I have traced through the FW code, and both parameters are unused. GfxCoreFamily does appear to be set in the FW, and it gets passed into SLPC, but then it never gets used. I have confirmed with FW developers that these parameters have been removed for future gens. > > > > -Chris > > _______________________________________________ > > Intel-gfx mailing list > > Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org > > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
On 3/2/2018 12:44 AM, John Spotswood wrote: > On Thu, 2018-03-01 at 17:35 +0530, Sagar Arun Kamble wrote: >> On 3/1/2018 1:32 PM, Chris Wilson wrote: >>> Quoting Michel Thierry (2018-02-28 22:07:51) >>>> On 28/02/18 12:26, Michel Thierry wrote: >>>>> On 28/02/18 10:42, Piotr Piórkowski wrote: >>>>>> In the i915 driver, there is a function, >>>>>> intel_guc_init_params(), >>>>>> which initializes the GuC parameter block which is passed >>>>>> into >>>>>> the GuC. There is parameter GUC_CTL_DEVICE_INFO with values >>>>>> GfxGtType and GfxCoreFamily unused by GuC. >>>>>> >>>>>> This patch remove GUC_CTL_DEVICE_INFO with GfxGtType and >>>>>> GfxCoreFamily parameters and also unnecessary functions >>>>>> get_gt_type() and get_core_family(). >>>>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> Looking at the fw code, you're partially right, GfxGtType is >>>>> ignored... >>>>> but GfxCoreFamily isn't. >>>>> >>>> Unless whoever wrote the fw was smart enough to forget to call >>>> the >>>> function that is reading GfxCoreFamily... I didn't count on that. >>> Is the intention to use GfxCoreFamily documented, i.e. are they >>> expecting it part of the interface and may re-instantiate the check >>> "because it was always supposed to exist" in some future version? >> Usage of GfxCoreFamily is only in SLPC and for platform specific >> initialization and might be removed in future interfaces. >> If needed, we can add as part of SLPC patches. > Michel and I have traced through the FW code, and both parameters are > unused. GfxCoreFamily does appear to be set in the FW, and it gets > passed into SLPC, but then it never gets used. Hi John, It is needed for SLPC initialization. Verified on v9 GuC firmware that SLPC GTPERF gets disabled if i915 does not send this param. We can add this param as part of SLPC patches for GuC versions which need them. Thanks Sagar > I have confirmed with > FW developers that these parameters have been removed for future gens. >>> -Chris >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Intel-gfx mailing list >>> Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org >>> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
On Fri, 2018-03-02 at 12:53 +0530, Sagar Arun Kamble wrote: > > On 3/2/2018 12:44 AM, John Spotswood wrote: > > On Thu, 2018-03-01 at 17:35 +0530, Sagar Arun Kamble wrote: > > > On 3/1/2018 1:32 PM, Chris Wilson wrote: > > > > Quoting Michel Thierry (2018-02-28 22:07:51) > > > > > On 28/02/18 12:26, Michel Thierry wrote: > > > > > > On 28/02/18 10:42, Piotr Piórkowski wrote: > > > > > > > In the i915 driver, there is a function, > > > > > > > intel_guc_init_params(), > > > > > > > which initializes the GuC parameter block which is passed > > > > > > > into > > > > > > > the GuC. There is parameter GUC_CTL_DEVICE_INFO with > > > > > > > values > > > > > > > GfxGtType and GfxCoreFamily unused by GuC. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This patch remove GUC_CTL_DEVICE_INFO with GfxGtType and > > > > > > > GfxCoreFamily parameters and also unnecessary functions > > > > > > > get_gt_type() and get_core_family(). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > > Looking at the fw code, you're partially right, GfxGtType > > > > > > is > > > > > > ignored... > > > > > > but GfxCoreFamily isn't. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unless whoever wrote the fw was smart enough to forget to > > > > > call > > > > > the > > > > > function that is reading GfxCoreFamily... I didn't count on > > > > > that. > > > > > > > > Is the intention to use GfxCoreFamily documented, i.e. are they > > > > expecting it part of the interface and may re-instantiate the > > > > check > > > > "because it was always supposed to exist" in some future > > > > version? > > > > > > Usage of GfxCoreFamily is only in SLPC and for platform specific > > > initialization and might be removed in future interfaces. > > > If needed, we can add as part of SLPC patches. > > > > Michel and I have traced through the FW code, and both parameters > > are > > unused. GfxCoreFamily does appear to be set in the FW, and it gets > > passed into SLPC, but then it never gets used. > > Hi John, > > It is needed for SLPC initialization. Verified on v9 GuC firmware > that > SLPC GTPERF gets disabled if i915 does not send this param. > We can add this param as part of SLPC patches for GuC versions which > need them. Ok, so I think that we should remove this param from i915, and than if it is needed, we can add this param as part of SLPC patches, as Sagar said. -Piotr > > Thanks > Sagar > > I have confirmed with > > FW developers that these parameters have been removed for future > > gens. > > > > -Chris > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Intel-gfx mailing list > > > > Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org > > > > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx > >
On Mon, 2018-03-05 at 03:12 -0800, Piorkowski, Piotr wrote: > On Fri, 2018-03-02 at 12:53 +0530, Sagar Arun Kamble wrote: > > > > > > On 3/2/2018 12:44 AM, John Spotswood wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, 2018-03-01 at 17:35 +0530, Sagar Arun Kamble wrote: > > > > > > > > On 3/1/2018 1:32 PM, Chris Wilson wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Quoting Michel Thierry (2018-02-28 22:07:51) > > > > > > > > > > > > On 28/02/18 12:26, Michel Thierry wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 28/02/18 10:42, Piotr Piórkowski wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In the i915 driver, there is a function, > > > > > > > > intel_guc_init_params(), > > > > > > > > which initializes the GuC parameter block which is > > > > > > > > passed > > > > > > > > into > > > > > > > > the GuC. There is parameter GUC_CTL_DEVICE_INFO with > > > > > > > > values > > > > > > > > GfxGtType and GfxCoreFamily unused by GuC. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This patch remove GUC_CTL_DEVICE_INFO with GfxGtType > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > GfxCoreFamily parameters and also unnecessary functions > > > > > > > > get_gt_type() and get_core_family(). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Looking at the fw code, you're partially right, GfxGtType > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > ignored... > > > > > > > but GfxCoreFamily isn't. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unless whoever wrote the fw was smart enough to forget to > > > > > > call > > > > > > the > > > > > > function that is reading GfxCoreFamily... I didn't count on > > > > > > that. > > > > > Is the intention to use GfxCoreFamily documented, i.e. are > > > > > they > > > > > expecting it part of the interface and may re-instantiate the > > > > > check > > > > > "because it was always supposed to exist" in some future > > > > > version? > > > > Usage of GfxCoreFamily is only in SLPC and for platform > > > > specific > > > > initialization and might be removed in future interfaces. > > > > If needed, we can add as part of SLPC patches. > > > Michel and I have traced through the FW code, and both parameters > > > are > > > unused. GfxCoreFamily does appear to be set in the FW, and it > > > gets > > > passed into SLPC, but then it never gets used. > > Hi John, > > > > It is needed for SLPC initialization. Verified on v9 GuC firmware > > that > > SLPC GTPERF gets disabled if i915 does not send this param. > > We can add this param as part of SLPC patches for GuC versions > > which > > need them. > Ok, so I think that we should remove this param from i915, and than > if > it is needed, we can add this param as part of SLPC patches, as Sagar > said. I have gone back and taken another look at the FW code, and Sagar is correct. There is a link there. Apologies for the mistake. With that in mind, I'm not clear why we would remove the parameter only to add it back with the SLPC patches. > > -Piotr > > > > > > Thanks > > Sagar > > > > > > I have confirmed with > > > FW developers that these parameters have been removed for future > > > gens. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Chris > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > Intel-gfx mailing list > > > > > Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org > > > > > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_params.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_params.h index 430f5f9d0ff4..3deae1e22974 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_params.h +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_params.h @@ -47,7 +47,7 @@ struct drm_printer; param(int, disable_power_well, -1) \ param(int, enable_ips, 1) \ param(int, invert_brightness, 0) \ - param(int, enable_guc, 0) \ + param(int, enable_guc, -1) \ param(int, guc_log_level, 0) \ param(char *, guc_firmware_path, NULL) \ param(char *, huc_firmware_path, NULL) \ diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc.c index 21140ccd7a97..5f6d84251830 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc.c @@ -200,26 +200,6 @@ void intel_guc_fini(struct intel_guc *guc) guc_shared_data_destroy(guc); } -static u32 get_gt_type(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv) -{ - /* XXX: GT type based on PCI device ID? field seems unused by fw */ - return 0; -} - -static u32 get_core_family(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv) -{ - u32 gen = INTEL_GEN(dev_priv); - - switch (gen) { - case 9: - return GUC_CORE_FAMILY_GEN9; - - default: - MISSING_CASE(gen); - return GUC_CORE_FAMILY_UNKNOWN; - } -} - static u32 get_log_verbosity_flags(void) { if (i915_modparams.guc_log_level > 0) { @@ -246,10 +226,6 @@ void intel_guc_init_params(struct intel_guc *guc) memset(params, 0, sizeof(params)); - params[GUC_CTL_DEVICE_INFO] |= - (get_gt_type(dev_priv) << GUC_CTL_GT_TYPE_SHIFT) | - (get_core_family(dev_priv) << GUC_CTL_CORE_FAMILY_SHIFT); - /* * GuC ARAT increment is 10 ns. GuC default scheduler quantum is one * second. This ARAR is calculated by: diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_fwif.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_fwif.h index 6a10aa6f04d3..0f381de44722 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_fwif.h +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_fwif.h @@ -81,10 +81,6 @@ #define GUC_CTL_ARAT_HIGH 1 #define GUC_CTL_ARAT_LOW 2 -#define GUC_CTL_DEVICE_INFO 3 -#define GUC_CTL_GT_TYPE_SHIFT 0 -#define GUC_CTL_CORE_FAMILY_SHIFT 7 - #define GUC_CTL_LOG_PARAMS 4 #define GUC_LOG_VALID (1 << 0) #define GUC_LOG_NOTIFY_ON_HALF_FULL (1 << 1) diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uc.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uc.c index 9f1bac6398fb..b48056fb769d 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uc.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uc.c @@ -63,6 +63,8 @@ static int __get_platform_enable_guc(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv) enable_guc |= ENABLE_GUC_LOAD_HUC; /* Any platform specific fine-tuning can be done here */ + if (boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_HYPERVISOR)) + enable_guc = 0; return enable_guc; }
In the i915 driver, there is a function, intel_guc_init_params(), which initializes the GuC parameter block which is passed into the GuC. There is parameter GUC_CTL_DEVICE_INFO with values GfxGtType and GfxCoreFamily unused by GuC. This patch remove GUC_CTL_DEVICE_INFO with GfxGtType and GfxCoreFamily parameters and also unnecessary functions get_gt_type() and get_core_family(). Signed-off-by: Piotr Piórkowski <piotr.piorkowski@intel.com> --- drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_params.h | 2 +- drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc.c | 24 ------------------------ drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_fwif.h | 4 ---- drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uc.c | 2 ++ 4 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-)