amd-gfx Digest, Vol 13, Issue 29

Submitted by Xie, AlexBin on June 5, 2017, 2:24 p.m.

Details

Message ID DM5PR12MB1257EE5D5ADFC07338381436F2CA0@DM5PR12MB1257.namprd12.prod.outlook.com
State New
Headers show
Series "amd-gfx Digest, Vol 13, Issue 29" ( rev: 1 ) in AMD X.Org drivers

Not browsing as part of any series.

Commit Message

Xie, AlexBin June 5, 2017, 2:24 p.m.
Hi, Tom,

You have found a bug.

Your patch looks fine for me.

Have you confirmed the deleted part is older version? Perhaps search email list or git history to confirm? 

Alex Bin Xie

-----Original Message-----
From: amd-gfx [mailto:amd-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org] On Behalf Of amd-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org

Sent: Monday, June 5, 2017 8:00 AM
To: amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: amd-gfx Digest, Vol 13, Issue 29

Send amd-gfx mailing list submissions to
	amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	amd-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	amd-gfx-owner@lists.freedesktop.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of amd-gfx digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. [PATCH] drm/amd/amdgpu:  Fix ring initialization for GFX9
      (Tom St Denis)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Mon,  5 Jun 2017 07:46:01 -0400
From: Tom St Denis <tom.stdenis@amd.com>

To: amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
Cc: Tom St Denis <tom.stdenis@amd.com>
Subject: [PATCH] drm/amd/amdgpu:  Fix ring initialization for GFX9
Message-ID: <20170605114601.11995-1-tom.stdenis@amd.com>
Content-Type: text/plain

The commit 83866f0fc72017d55f40cbd4160cd1e42a2cc3a8 erroneously included the
old ring init sequence along with the new one which uses shared header definitions.

The fix which works on my vega10 seems to be to drop the old init sequence.

Signed-off-by: Tom St Denis <tom.stdenis@amd.com>

---
 drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/gfx_v9_0.c | 26 --------------------------
 1 file changed, 26 deletions(-)

-- 
2.12.0



------------------------------

Subject: Digest Footer

_______________________________________________
amd-gfx mailing list
amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx


------------------------------

End of amd-gfx Digest, Vol 13, Issue 29
***************************************

Patch hide | download patch | download mbox

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/gfx_v9_0.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/gfx_v9_0.c
index 9502353ec325..8388893e0b11 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/gfx_v9_0.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/gfx_v9_0.c
@@ -1586,32 +1586,6 @@  static int gfx_v9_0_sw_init(void *handle)
 		ring_id++;
 	}
 
-	/* set up the compute queues */
-	for (i = 0, ring_id = 0; i < AMDGPU_MAX_COMPUTE_QUEUES; i++) {
-		unsigned irq_type;
-
-		/* max 32 queues per MEC */
-		if ((i >= 32) || (i >= AMDGPU_MAX_COMPUTE_RINGS)) {
-			DRM_ERROR("Too many (%d) compute rings!\n", i);
-			break;
-		}
-		ring = &adev->gfx.compute_ring[i];
-		ring->ring_obj = NULL;
-		ring->use_doorbell = true;
-		ring->doorbell_index = (AMDGPU_DOORBELL64_MEC_RING0 + i) << 1;
-		ring->me = 1; /* first MEC */
-		ring->pipe = i / 8;
-		ring->queue = i % 8;
-		ring->eop_gpu_addr = adev->gfx.mec.hpd_eop_gpu_addr + (i * GFX9_MEC_HPD_SIZE);
-		sprintf(ring->name, "comp_%d.%d.%d", ring->me, ring->pipe, ring->queue);
-		irq_type = AMDGPU_CP_IRQ_COMPUTE_MEC1_PIPE0_EOP + ring->pipe;
-		/* type-2 packets are deprecated on MEC, use type-3 instead */
-		r = amdgpu_ring_init(adev, ring, 1024,
-				     &adev->gfx.eop_irq, irq_type);
-		if (r)
-			return r;
-	}
-
 	r = gfx_v9_0_kiq_init(adev);
 	if (r) {
 		DRM_ERROR("Failed to init KIQ BOs!\n");

Comments

On 05/06/17 10:24 AM, Xie, AlexBin wrote:
> Hi, Tom,
> 
> You have found a bug.
> 
> Your patch looks fine for me.
> 
> Have you confirmed the deleted part is older version? Perhaps search email list or git history to confirm?

It looks like the edits to the older GFX files (7/8) simply changed that 
block of code whereas the gfx9 version they pasted in the fixed block 
moving the old block down.

Tom