From: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com>
To: "Ville Syrjälä" <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>,
intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, lucas.demarchi@intel.com,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>,
linux-pci@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] drm/i915: don't include CML PCI IDs in CFL
Date: Fri, 10 May 2024 14:24:52 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87ikzlj4e3.fsf@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Zj34KTmYP6VNQ3CS@intel.com>
On Fri, 10 May 2024, Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 01:24:12PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
>> On Wed, 08 May 2024, Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>> > On Wed, May 08, 2024 at 02:45:10PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 08 May 2024, Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>> >> > On Tue, May 07, 2024 at 09:47:16AM -0400, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
>> >> >> On Tue, May 07, 2024 at 03:56:48PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
>> >> >> > It's confusing for INTEL_CFL_IDS() to include all CML PCI IDs. Even if
>> >> >> > we treat them the same in a lot of places, CML is a platform of its own,
>> >> >> > and the lists of PCI IDs should not conflate them.
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> >> >> Why only CML and not AML and WHL as well?
>> >> >
>> >> > Why do we even have CML as a separate platform? The only difference
>> >> > I can see is is that we do allow_read_ctx_timestamp() for CML but
>> >> > not for CFL. Does that even make sense?
>> >>
>> >> git blame tells me:
>> >>
>> >> 5f4ae2704d59 ("drm/i915: Identify Cometlake platform")
>> >> dbc7e72897a4 ("drm/i915/gt: Make the CTX_TIMESTAMP readable on !rcs")
>> >
>> > Right. That explains why we need it on CML+. But is there some reason
>> > we can't just do it on CFL as well, even if not strictly necessary?
>> > I would assume that setting FORCE_TO_NONPRIV on an already
>> > non-privileged register should be totally fine.
>>
>> I have absolutely no idea.
>>
>> I'm somewhat thinking "CML being a separate platform" is a separate
>> problem from "CFL PCI ID macros including CML".
>>
>> I'm starting to think the PCI ID macros should be grouped by "does the
>> platform have a name of its own",
>
> That and/or "does bspec have a separate 'Confgurations <platform>' page?"
>
>> not by how those macros are actually
>> used by the driver. Keeping them separate at the PCI ID macro level just
>> reduces the pain in maintaining the PCI IDs, and lets us wiggle stuff
>> around in the driver how we see fit.
>
> Aye.
>
>>
>> And that spins back to Rodrigo's question, "Why only CML and not AML and
>> WHL as well?". Yeah, indeed.
>>
>> If we decide to stop treating CML as a separate platform in the
>> *driver*, that's another matter.
>
> Sure. Seeing it just got me wondering...
I sent a new series with just the PCI ID macro cleanups [1]. I meant to
Cc: you and Rodrigo, but forgot. :(
BR,
Jani.
[1] https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/133444/
--
Jani Nikula, Intel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-05-10 11:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-05-07 12:56 [PATCH 0/5] drm/i915: PCI ID macro and subplatform changes Jani Nikula
2024-05-07 12:56 ` [PATCH 1/5] drm/i915: don't include CML PCI IDs in CFL Jani Nikula
2024-05-07 13:47 ` Rodrigo Vivi
2024-05-08 8:33 ` Jani Nikula
2024-05-08 12:38 ` Rodrigo Vivi
2024-05-08 10:57 ` Ville Syrjälä
2024-05-08 11:45 ` Jani Nikula
2024-05-08 12:01 ` Ville Syrjälä
2024-05-10 10:24 ` Jani Nikula
2024-05-10 10:34 ` Ville Syrjälä
2024-05-10 11:24 ` Jani Nikula [this message]
2024-05-07 12:56 ` [PATCH 2/5] drm/i915: don't include RPL-U PCI IDs in RPL-P Jani Nikula
2024-05-08 12:41 ` Rodrigo Vivi
2024-05-07 12:56 ` [PATCH 3/5] drm/i915: separate RPL-U from RPL-P Jani Nikula
2024-05-08 12:46 ` Rodrigo Vivi
2024-05-07 12:56 ` [PATCH 4/5] drm/i915: simplify ULT/ULX subplatform detection Jani Nikula
2024-05-08 12:51 ` Rodrigo Vivi
2024-05-08 13:01 ` Jani Nikula
2024-05-08 13:52 ` Rodrigo Vivi
2024-05-07 12:56 ` [PATCH 5/5] drm/i915: make the PCI ID macros more flexible Jani Nikula
2024-05-07 13:56 ` ✗ Fi.CI.CHECKPATCH: warning for drm/i915: PCI ID macro and subplatform changes Patchwork
2024-05-07 13:56 ` ✗ Fi.CI.SPARSE: " Patchwork
2024-05-07 14:13 ` ✗ Fi.CI.BAT: failure " Patchwork
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=87ikzlj4e3.fsf@intel.com \
--to=jani.nikula@intel.com \
--cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
--cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lucas.demarchi@intel.com \
--cc=rodrigo.vivi@intel.com \
--cc=ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).