[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <14954d6d-67bc-49f4-b394-3da4e1f80af1@bosc.ac.cn>
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2025 18:20:00 +0800
From: ZhangZhiJie <zhangzhijie@...c.ac.cn>
To: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>, jeff@...fgeerling.com,
wangran@...c.ac.cn, zhangjian@...c.ac.cn, daniel@...ll.ch,
rodrigo.vivi@...el.com, joonas.lahtinen@...ux.intel.com,
tursulin@...ulin.net, airlied@...il.com, intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org,
intel-xe@...ts.freedesktop.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, guoyaxing@...c.ac.cn
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] i915: Support Intel GPU porting on any non-x86 system.
On 2025/11/25 18:13, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Nov 2025, ZhangZhiJie <zhangzhijie@...c.ac.cn> wrote:
>> On 2025/11/24 20:24, Jani Nikula wrote:
>>> On Mon, 24 Nov 2025, zhangzhijie <zhangzhijie@...c.ac.cn> wrote:
>>>> inb/outb speccial wire not support on other ARCH.
>>>> Should detect whether arch platform support or not.
>>>
>>> Seems to me it inb/outb depend on CONFIG_HAS_IOPORT. Which arch are you
>>> talking about specifically?
>>
>> riscv , has CONFIG_HAS_IOPORT. is using for serial, GPIO., etc.
>
> What is the actual failure mode you see?
>
> Does it build?
>
> BR,
> Jani.
>
Yes, i compiled Xe driver, and it's occured load access fault when not
disable VGA_SEQ_*.
can found this link
https://github.com/geerlingguy/raspberry-pi-pcie-devices/issues/510#issuecomment-3383284831
Thanks.
BR.
ZhiJie
>
>
>>
>> Thanks.
>> BR.
>> ZhiJie
>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: zhangzhijie <zhangzhijie@...c.ac.cn>
>>>> ---
>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_vga.c | 27 ++++++++++++++++++------
>>>> 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_vga.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_vga.c
>>>> index 6e125564db34..d5d6c4ba6434 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_vga.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_vga.c
>>>> @@ -41,6 +41,15 @@ static bool has_vga_pipe_sel(struct intel_display *display)
>>>> return DISPLAY_VER(display) < 7;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> +static bool intel_arch_support_vga_pm(struct intel_display *display)
>>>> +{
>>>> +#if defined(CONFIG_X86) || defined(CONFIG_X86_64)
>>>> + return true;
>>>> +#else
>>>> + return false;
>>>> +#endif
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> /* Disable the VGA plane that we never use */
>>>> void intel_vga_disable(struct intel_display *display)
>>>> {
>>>> @@ -66,11 +75,13 @@ void intel_vga_disable(struct intel_display *display)
>>>>
>>>> /* WaEnableVGAAccessThroughIOPort:ctg,elk,ilk,snb,ivb,vlv,hsw */
>>>> vga_get_uninterruptible(pdev, VGA_RSRC_LEGACY_IO);
>>>> - outb(0x01, VGA_SEQ_I);
>>>> - sr1 = inb(VGA_SEQ_D);
>>>> - outb(sr1 | VGA_SR01_SCREEN_OFF, VGA_SEQ_D);
>>>> - vga_put(pdev, VGA_RSRC_LEGACY_IO);
>>>> - udelay(300);
>>>> + if (likely(intel_arch_support_vga_pm(display))) {
>>>
>>> As a rule of thumb, please do not use likely/unlikely, at all.
>>>
>>> Here, intel_arch_support_vga_pm() is evaluated at build time, and the
>>> likely has no functional value, only dubious documentation value.
>>>
>>>> + outb(0x01, VGA_SEQ_I);
>>>> + sr1 = inb(VGA_SEQ_D);
>>>> + outb(sr1 | VGA_SR01_SCREEN_OFF, VGA_SEQ_D);
>>>> + vga_put(pdev, VGA_RSRC_LEGACY_IO);
>>>
>>> Both or neither get/put need to be inside the branch. Now you only get,
>>> never put, on non-x86.
>>>
>>> BR,
>>> Jani.
>>>
>>>> + udelay(300);
>>>> + }
>>>>
>>>> intel_de_write(display, vga_reg, VGA_DISP_DISABLE);
>>>> intel_de_posting_read(display, vga_reg);
>>>> @@ -91,8 +102,10 @@ void intel_vga_reset_io_mem(struct intel_display *display)
>>>> * and error messages.
>>>> */
>>>> vga_get_uninterruptible(pdev, VGA_RSRC_LEGACY_IO);
>>>> - outb(inb(VGA_MIS_R), VGA_MIS_W);
>>>> - vga_put(pdev, VGA_RSRC_LEGACY_IO);
>>>> + if (likely(intel_arch_support_vga_pm(display))) {
>>>> + outb(inb(VGA_MIS_R), VGA_MIS_W);
>>>> + vga_put(pdev, VGA_RSRC_LEGACY_IO);
>>>> + }
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> int intel_vga_register(struct intel_display *display)
>>>
>>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists