Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915/gsc: Fix the Driver-FLR completion

2023-02-23 Thread Teres Alexis, Alan Previn
Thanks Daniele, you are right about the fixes tag - i totally forgot that MTL is still force-probe. Will respin with the bit definition fix, remove the fixes-tag and leave out the get/put runtime-pm from rev3 (as per your comment on rev3). Rev4 coming right up. ...alan P.S. I had the same

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915/gsc: Fix the Driver-FLR completion

2023-02-23 Thread Ceraolo Spurio, Daniele
On 2/22/2023 1:01 PM, Alan Previn wrote: The Driver-FLR flow may inadvertently exit early before the full completion of the re-init of the internal HW state if we only poll GU_DEBUG Bit31 (polling for it to toggle from 0 -> 1). Instead we need a two-step completion wait-for-completion flow

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915/gsc: Fix the Driver-FLR completion

2023-02-23 Thread Ceraolo Spurio, Daniele
On 2/23/2023 2:04 PM, Alan Previn wrote: The Driver-FLR flow may inadvertently exit early before the full completion of the re-init of the internal HW state if we only poll GU_DEBUG Bit31 (polling for it to toggle from 0 -> 1). Instead we need a two-step completion wait-for-completion flow

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915/gsc: Fix the Driver-FLR completion

2023-02-23 Thread Teres Alexis, Alan Previn
On Wed, 2023-02-22 at 13:01 -0800, Teres Alexis, Alan Previn wrote: > The Driver-FLR flow may inadvertently exit early before the full > completion of the re-init of the internal HW state if we only poll > GU_DEBUG Bit31 (polling for it to toggle from 0 -> 1). Instead > we need a two-step

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915/gsc: Fix the Driver-FLR completion

2023-02-22 Thread Belgaumkar, Vinay
On 2/22/2023 1:01 PM, Alan Previn wrote: The Driver-FLR flow may inadvertently exit early before the full completion of the re-init of the internal HW state if we only poll GU_DEBUG Bit31 (polling for it to toggle from 0 -> 1). Instead we need a two-step completion wait-for-completion flow