On 24/06/15 11:29, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 09:43:11AM +0100, Dave Gordon wrote:
On 18/06/15 15:49, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 01:11:34PM +0100, Dave Gordon wrote:
On 17/06/15 13:05, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 07:36:20PM +0100, Dave Gordon wrote:
Current devices may contain one or more programmable microcontrollers
that need to have a firmware image (aka "binary blob") loaded from an
external medium and transferred to the device's memory.
This file provides generic support functions for doing this; they can
then be used by each uC-specific loader, thus reducing code duplication
and testing effort.
Signed-off-by: Dave Gordon <david.s.gor...@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Alex Dai <yu....@intel.com>
Given that I'm just shredding the synchronization used by the dmc loader
I'm not convinced this is a good idea. Abstraction has cost, and a bit of
copy-paste for similar sounding but slightly different things doesn't
sound awful to me. And the critical bit in all the firmware loading I've
seen thus far is in synchronizing the loading with other operations,
hiding that isn't a good idea. Worse if we enforce stuff like requiring
dev->struct_mutex.
-Daniel
It's precisely because it's in some sense "trivial-but-tricky" that we
should write it once, get it right, and use it everywhere. Copypaste
/does/ sound awful; I've seen how the code this was derived from had
already been cloned into three flavours, all different and all wrong.
It's a very simple abstraction: one early call to kick things off as
early as possible, no locking required. One late call with the
struct_mutex held to complete the synchronisation and actually do the
work, thus guaranteeing that the transfer to the target uC is done in a
controlled fashion, at a time of the caller's choice, and by the
driver's mainline thread, NOT by an asynchronous thread racing with
other activity (which was one of the things wrong with the original
version).
Yeah I've seen the origins of this in the display code, and that code gets
the syncing wrong. The only thing that one has do to is grab a runtime pm
reference for the appropriate power well to prevent dc5 entry, and release
it when the firmware is loaded and initialized.
Agreed.
Which means any kind of firmware loader which requires/uses
dev->struct_mutex get stuff wrong and is not appropriate everywhere.
BUT, the loading of the firmware into any uC MUST be done in a
controlled manner i.e. at a time when no other thread is touching the
h/w. Otherwise the f/w load and whatever else is concurrently accessing
the h/w could in some cases interfere disastrously. Examples of
interference might be:
* interleaved accesses to the ELSP (in the case of the GuC)
* incorrect handover of power management (DMC, GuC)
* erroneous management of forcewake state
In general the f/w that is just starting on the uC may have certain
expectations about the initial state of the h/w, which may not be met if
other threads are accessing various bits of h/w while the uC is booting up.
So we absolutely need to guarantee that the f/w load is done by a thread
which has exclusive ownership of any bit of the h/w that the f/w is
going to make assumptions about. With the current locking structure of
the driver, that means holding the struct_mutex (it shouldn't really,
there should be a separate mutex for h/w register access vs.
driver-private data structures, but there isn't).
If you really need this guarantee (and I seriously hope not) then the only
option is a synchronous firmware load at driver init _before_ we launch
any of the asynchronous setup code. And there is already a lot of that,
and we're adding more all the time.
What I expect we need is synchronization of just the revelant part with
the firmware loading, which necessarily needs to be somewhat async to be
able to support cros/android requirements. And yes that needs to be done
in a controlled manner, but most likely we need very specific solutions
for the problem at hand. Unconditionally holding dev->struct_mutex isn't
that solution.
The other problem with dev->struct_mutex is that it's a giantic lock with
ill defined coverage and semantics. It's imo the biggest piece of
technical debt we carry around in i915.ko, and we pay the price for that
dearly&daily. Which means that since a few years any kind of code
which extended dev->struct_mutex to anything not clearly core gem data
structures was rejected.
Oh, I quite agree that the struct_mutex is an abomination and would
certainly like to eliminate it. But at the moment it's the only
sufficiently large-scale synchronisation operation available to ensure
that (for example) we don't try to load the f/w at the same time that
another thread is trying to reset the h/w.
None of this loader code really needs the struct_mutex specifically; the
WARN_ON macros were just there to help callers know what degree of
synchronisation they need to organise before calling these functions.
[snip]
BTW, the existing DMC loader probably won't work on Android :(
Yeah I completely missed out on this fun since I presumed that firmware
loading is easy and simple. And if you look around on other drm drivers it
indeed is, they all use a synchronous request_firmware and if the firmware
isn't there, they just fall over (fully in the case of radeon.ko,
partially in the case of nouveau.ko since they have all the support in
place for handling a kms-only accel-less gpu in userspace anyway, like we
do). But for a bunch of reasons (afaik it's "you can't include a blob in a
gpl-ed kernel image" we need async firmware loading for cros&android).
That leaves us with a situation where we should have done a special design
discussion about asynchronous firmware, but somehow failed do to that.
Which leaves us in a very ugly position.
I talked with a bunch of people over the past few days to figure out how
this is supposed to work and also figure out why it's being done like that
today. I think I have a reasonable good plan for moving forward too. I'll
start a new top-level thread here to discuss this.
Thanks, Daniel
It really isn't "asynchronous", it's just "deferred" -- but implying
that everything that relies on having the firmware available also has to
be deferred. For the DMC, that means we can't have full PM; and for the
GuC, we can't submit any batches at all to any engine until the f/w load
is done.
Really, it would be simpler if we didn't support automatic firmware
loading in the kernel at all, and had a userland startup process whose
job was to locate and transfer the required firmware before the device
could be used. But that would just give us the opposite problem, because
the display device is one of the things that /should/ be usable even
before the rootfs is mounted.
Anyway, I've posted a simplified v3 which only supports synchronous
fetch, without the prefetch capability. See separate thread ...
.Dave.
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
