On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 02:22:50PM -0700, José Roberto de Souza wrote: > IPC was only added in SKL+(actually we don't even enable for SKL due > WA) so without this change, driver was writing to a reserved bit. > > Also check for the WA in intel_init_ipc() to avoid further writes to > ipc_enabled. > > Signed-off-by: José Roberto de Souza <[email protected]> > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c | 8 ++++---- > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c > index d99e5fabe93c..b2328f7d277d 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c > @@ -6108,10 +6108,8 @@ void intel_enable_ipc(struct drm_i915_private > *dev_priv) > u32 val; > > /* Display WA #0477 WaDisableIPC: skl */ > - if (IS_SKYLAKE(dev_priv)) { > - dev_priv->ipc_enabled = false; > + if (!HAS_IPC(dev_priv) || IS_SKYLAKE(dev_priv)) > return; > - } > > val = I915_READ(DISP_ARB_CTL2); > > @@ -6126,7 +6124,9 @@ void intel_enable_ipc(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv) > void intel_init_ipc(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv) > { > dev_priv->ipc_enabled = false; > - if (!HAS_IPC(dev_priv)) > + > + /* Display WA #0477 WaDisableIPC: skl */
What about move the WA 0477 inside HAS_IPC and avoid the duplication? > + if (!HAS_IPC(dev_priv) || IS_SKYLAKE(dev_priv)) > return; > > dev_priv->ipc_enabled = true; > -- > 2.19.0 > > _______________________________________________ > Intel-gfx mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list [email protected] https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
