[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZWVizpRkf5iJ2LnQ@google.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2023 03:47:26 +0000
From: Paz Zcharya <pazz@...omium.org>
To: Andrzej Hajda <andrzej.hajda@...el.com>
Cc: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@...el.com>,
Subrata Banik <subratabanik@...gle.com>,
Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@...el.com>,
intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, Sean Paul <seanpaul@...omium.org>,
matthew.auld@...el.com, Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
Marcin Wojtas <mwojtas@...omium.org>,
Drew Davenport <ddavenport@...omium.org>,
David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>,
Nirmoy Das <nirmoy.das@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915/display: Fix phys_base to be
relative not absolute
On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 8:20 PM Paz Zcharya <pazz@...omium.org> wrote:
>
> On 21.11.2023 13:06, Andrzej Hajda wrote:
> > On 18.11.2023 00:01, Paz Zcharya wrote:
> > > On Tue, Nov 14, 2023 at 10:13:59PM -0500, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Nov 05, 2023 at 05:27:03PM +0000, Paz Zcharya wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Rodrigo, thanks for the great comments.
> > >
> > > Apologies for using a wrong/confusing terminology. I think 'phys_base'
> > > is supposed to be the offset in the GEM BO, where base (or
> > > "Surface Base Address") is supposed to be the GTT offset.
> >
> > Since base is taken from PLANE_SURF register it should be resolvable via
> > GGTT to physical address pointing to actual framebuffer.
> > I couldn't find anything in the specs.
>
> It was quite cryptic. I meant I have not found anything about assumption
> from commit history that for iGPU there should be 1:1 mapping, this is why
> there was an assignment "phys_base = base". Possibly the assumption is not
> valid anymore for MTL(?).
> Without the assumption we need to check GGTT to determine phys address.
>
> > The simplest approach would be then do the same as in case of DGFX:
> > gen8_pte_t __iomem *gte = to_gt(i915)->ggtt->gsm;
> > gen8_pte_t pte;
> >
> > gte += base / I915_GTT_PAGE_SIZE;
> >
> > pte = ioread64(gte);
> > phys_base = pte & I915_GTT_PAGE_MASK;
> >
> > Regards
> > Andrzej
Hey Andrzej,
On a second thought, what do you think about something like
+ gen8_pte_t __iomem *gte = to_gt(i915)->ggtt->gsm;
+ gen8_pte_t pte;
+ gte += base / I915_GTT_PAGE_SIZE;
+ pte = ioread64(gte);
+ pte = pte & I915_GTT_PAGE_MASK;
+ phys_base = pte - i915->mm.stolen_region->region.start;
The only difference is the last line.
Based on what I wrote before, I think `phys_base` is named incorrectly and
that it does not reflect the physical address, but the start offset of
i915->mm.stolen_region. So if we offset the start value of the stolen
region, this code looks correct to me (and it also works on my
MeteorLake device).
What do you think?
Many thanks,
Paz
Powered by blists - more mailing lists