> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roper, Matthew D <[email protected]>
> Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2024 10:08 PM
> To: Shankar, Uma <[email protected]>
> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected];
> [email protected]; Ceraolo Spurio, Daniele
> <[email protected]>; Belgaumkar, Vinay
> <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/xe/fbdev: Limit the usage of stolen for LNL+
>
> On Thu, Jul 11, 2024 at 10:43:39AM +0530, Uma Shankar wrote:
> > As per recommendation in the workarounds:
> > WA_14021987551, Wa_16023588340:
>
> The first one here isn't a valid workaround lineage number, just a
> per-platform
> ticket number. I think you meant Wa_22019338487, which is the lineage number
> that can be used to track the applicability of the workaround across all
> potentially
> relevant platform(s).
It was showing up as the WA with wa_status moved to pending_dem_decision so used
that number. But sure, will update the same to 22019338487 to get it correct.
> >
> > There is an issue with accessing Stolen memory pages due a hardware
> > limitation. Limit the usage of stolen memory for fbdev for LNL+. Don't
> > use BIOS FB from stolen on LNL+ and
>
> From a quick skim of these workarounds I don't see a clear indication that we
> need to avoid using stolen FB's? I thought these workarounds were already
> being
> implemented separately (and aside from disabling FBC, most of the necessary
> changes are on the GT side to adjust frequencies and change caching behavior
> of
> LMEMBAR accesses). I.e.,
>
> - Wa_16023588340: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/135699/
> - Wa_22019338487: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/135460/
There is a restriction of accessing stolen with CPU also be able to access it.
So adding the change to avoid this situation.
> One other nitpick: we've been trying to avoid using "+" as shorthand for "and
> beyond" lately since some of our IP names contain literal +'s in their name
> (e.g.,
> Xe_LPD+, Xe_LPM+, etc.). We don't want confusion about whether "LNL+" refers
> to "LNL and beyond" (as you mean here) or some other platform that's distinct
> from LNL.
>
> But in general we usually don't treat workarounds as "forever" logic unless
> they
> get written into the spec as new "official" programming. It looks like these
> workarounds apply to LNL/BMG today, but we shouldn't assume in advance that
> they'll automatically apply to platforms n+1,
> n+2, etc. as well.
>
> If we're making a concious decision to apply workaround programming to more
> platforms than it's technically needed on (e.g., in cases where a workaround
> doesn't have any negative impact, but applying it unconditionally simplifies
> the
> driver logic), that should be called out specifically in the commit message
> and
> comments to make it clear it isn't a mistake. But I don't think that's the
> case
> here, since otherwise we wouldn't be bothering with the DISPLAY_VER < 20
> condition either.
Thanks for clarifying Matt, will update the change and restrict it to
GRAPHICS_VERSION 2004.
>
> Matt
>
> > assign the same from system memory.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Uma Shankar <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > drivers/gpu/drm/xe/display/intel_fbdev_fb.c | 10 +++++++++-
> > drivers/gpu/drm/xe/display/xe_plane_initial.c | 10 ++++++++++
> > 2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/display/intel_fbdev_fb.c
> > b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/display/intel_fbdev_fb.c
> > index 816ad13821a8..8fda8745ce0a 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/display/intel_fbdev_fb.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/display/intel_fbdev_fb.c
> > @@ -37,7 +37,14 @@ struct intel_framebuffer *intel_fbdev_fb_alloc(struct
> drm_fb_helper *helper,
> > size = PAGE_ALIGN(size);
> > obj = ERR_PTR(-ENODEV);
> >
> > - if (!IS_DGFX(xe)) {
> > + /*
> > + * WA_14021987551, Wa_16023588340:
> > + * There is an issue with accessing Stolen memory pages
> > + * due a hardware limitation. Limit the usage of stolen
> > + * memory for fbdev for LNL+. Don't use BIOS FB from
> > + * stolen on LNL+ and assign the same from system memory
> > + */
> > + if (!IS_DGFX(xe) && (DISPLAY_VER(xe) < 20)) {
> > obj = xe_bo_create_pin_map(xe, xe_device_get_root_tile(xe),
> > NULL, size,
> > ttm_bo_type_kernel,
> XE_BO_FLAG_SCANOUT | @@ -48,6 +55,7 @@
> > struct intel_framebuffer *intel_fbdev_fb_alloc(struct drm_fb_helper *helper,
> > else
> > drm_info(&xe->drm, "Allocated fbdev into stolen failed:
> %li\n", PTR_ERR(obj));
> > }
> > +
> > if (IS_ERR(obj)) {
> > obj = xe_bo_create_pin_map(xe, xe_device_get_root_tile(xe),
> NULL, size,
> > ttm_bo_type_kernel,
> XE_BO_FLAG_SCANOUT | diff --git
> > a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/display/xe_plane_initial.c
> > b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/display/xe_plane_initial.c
> > index 5eccd6abb3ef..80dd6b64c921 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/display/xe_plane_initial.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/display/xe_plane_initial.c
> > @@ -104,6 +104,16 @@ initial_plane_bo(struct xe_device *xe,
> > phys_base = base;
> > flags |= XE_BO_FLAG_STOLEN;
> >
> > + /*
> > + * WA_14021987551, Wa_16023588340:
> > + * There is an issue with accessing Stolen memory pages
> > + * due a hardware limitation. Limit the usage of stolen
> > + * memory for fbdev for LNL+. Don't use BIOS FB from
> > + * stolen on LNL+ and assign the same from system memory
> > + */
> > + if (DISPLAY_VER(xe) >= 20)
> > + return NULL;
> > +
> > /*
> > * If the FB is too big, just don't use it since fbdev is not
> > very
> > * important and we should probably use that space with FBC or
> > other
> > --
> > 2.42.0
> >
>
> --
> Matt Roper
> Graphics Software Engineer
> Linux GPU Platform Enablement
> Intel Corporation
