From 91e4611ddc97c13ee66edfcd94974e6450d03726 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Ben Skeggs <bskeggs@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2014 14:41:26 +1000
Subject: [PATCH] drm/gk104-/fb/ram: perform certain steps only when bios data
differs
Awful, awful. But, on the GK106 I have, some upcoming patches show
that this is actually necessary after all.
Signed-off-by: Ben Skeggs <bskeggs@redhat.com>
---
.../gpu/drm/nouveau/core/subdev/fb/ramnve0.c | 53 ++++++++++++-------
1 file changed, 34 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/core/subdev/fb/ramnve0.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/core/subdev/fb/ramnve0.c
index 6af51ac3f0b4..afde4c1d6a4b 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/core/subdev/fb/ramnve0.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/core/subdev/fb/ramnve0.c
@@ -43,14 +43,6 @@
#include "ramfuc.h"
-/* binary driver only executes this path if the condition (a) is true
- * for any configuration (combination of rammap+ramcfg+timing) that
- * can be reached on a given card. for now, we will execute the branch
- * unconditionally in the hope that a "false everywhere" in the bios
- * tables doesn't actually mean "don't touch this".
- */
-#define NOTE00(a) 1
-
struct nve0_ramfuc {
struct ramfuc base;
@@ -141,6 +133,7 @@ struct nve0_ram {
u32 pmask;
u32 pnuts;
+ struct nvbios_ramcfg diff;
int from;
int mode;
int N1, fN1, M1, P1;
@@ -481,7 +474,7 @@ nve0_ram_calc_gddr5(struct nouveau_fb *pfb, u32 freq)
ram_mask(fuc, 0x10f2e8, 0xffffffff, next->bios.timing[9]);
data = mask = 0x00000000;
- if (NOTE00(ramcfg_08_20)) {
+ if (ram->diff.ramcfg_11_08_20) {
if (next->bios.ramcfg_11_08_20)
data |= 0x01000000;
mask |= 0x01000000;
@@ -489,11 +482,11 @@ nve0_ram_calc_gddr5(struct nouveau_fb *pfb, u32 freq)
ram_mask(fuc, 0x10f200, mask, data);
data = mask = 0x00000000;
- if (NOTE00(ramcfg_02_03 != 0)) {
+ if (ram->diff.ramcfg_11_02_03) {
data |= next->bios.ramcfg_11_02_03 << 8;
mask |= 0x00000300;
}
- if (NOTE00(ramcfg_01_10)) {
+ if (ram->diff.ramcfg_11_01_10) {
if (next->bios.ramcfg_11_01_10)
data |= 0x70000000;
mask |= 0x70000000;
@@ -501,11 +494,11 @@ nve0_ram_calc_gddr5(struct nouveau_fb *pfb, u32 freq)
ram_mask(fuc, 0x10f604, mask, data);
data = mask = 0x00000000;
- if (NOTE00(timing_30_07 != 0)) {
+ if (ram->diff.timing_20_30_07) {
data |= next->bios.timing_20_30_07 << 28;
mask |= 0x70000000;
}
- if (NOTE00(ramcfg_01_01)) {
+ if (ram->diff.ramcfg_11_01_01) {
if (next->bios.ramcfg_11_01_01)
data |= 0x00000100;
mask |= 0x00000100;
@@ -513,11 +506,11 @@ nve0_ram_calc_gddr5(struct nouveau_fb *pfb, u32 freq)
ram_mask(fuc, 0x10f614, mask, data);
data = mask = 0x00000000;
- if (NOTE00(timing_30_07 != 0)) {
+ if (ram->diff.timing_20_30_07) {
data |= next->bios.timing_20_30_07 << 28;
mask |= 0x70000000;
}
- if (NOTE00(ramcfg_01_02)) {
+ if (ram->diff.ramcfg_11_01_02) {
if (next->bios.ramcfg_11_01_02)
data |= 0x00000100;
mask |= 0x00000100;
@@ -551,11 +544,11 @@ nve0_ram_calc_gddr5(struct nouveau_fb *pfb, u32 freq)
ram_wr32(fuc, 0x10f870, 0x11111111 * next->bios.ramcfg_11_03_0f);
data = mask = 0x00000000;
- if (NOTE00(ramcfg_02_03 != 0)) {
+ if (ram->diff.ramcfg_11_02_03) {
data |= next->bios.ramcfg_11_02_03;
mask |= 0x00000003;
}
- if (NOTE00(ramcfg_01_10)) {
+ if (ram->diff.ramcfg_11_01_10) {
if (next->bios.ramcfg_11_01_10)
data |= 0x00000004;
mask |= 0x00000004;
@@ -1291,12 +1284,16 @@ nve0_ram_ctor_data(struct nve0_ram *ram, u8 ramcfg, int i)
struct nouveau_fb *pfb = (void *)nv_object(ram)->parent;
struct nouveau_bios *bios = nouveau_bios(pfb);
struct nouveau_ram_data *cfg;
+ struct nvbios_ramcfg *d = &ram->diff;
+ struct nvbios_ramcfg *p, *n;
u8 ver, hdr, cnt, len;
u32 data;
int ret;
if (!(cfg = kmalloc(sizeof(*cfg), GFP_KERNEL)))
return -ENOMEM;
+ p = &list_last_entry(&ram->cfg, typeof(*cfg), head)->bios;
+ n = &cfg->bios;
/* memory config data for a range of target frequencies */
data = nvbios_rammapEp(bios, i, &ver, &hdr, &cnt, &len, &cfg->bios);
@@ -1325,7 +1322,15 @@ nve0_ram_ctor_data(struct nve0_ram *ram, u8 ramcfg, int i)
}
list_add_tail(&cfg->head, &ram->cfg);
- ret = 0;
+ if (ret = 0, i == 0)
+ goto done;
+
+ d->ramcfg_11_01_01 |= p->ramcfg_11_01_01 != n->ramcfg_11_01_01;
+ d->ramcfg_11_01_02 |= p->ramcfg_11_01_02 != n->ramcfg_11_01_02;
+ d->ramcfg_11_01_10 |= p->ramcfg_11_01_10 != n->ramcfg_11_01_10;
+ d->ramcfg_11_02_03 |= p->ramcfg_11_02_03 != n->ramcfg_11_02_03;
+ d->ramcfg_11_08_20 |= p->ramcfg_11_08_20 != n->ramcfg_11_08_20;
+ d->timing_20_30_07 |= p->timing_20_30_07 != n->timing_20_30_07;
done:
if (ret)
kfree(cfg);
@@ -1397,7 +1402,17 @@ nve0_ram_ctor(struct nouveau_object *parent, struct nouveau_object *engine,
}
}
- /* parse ramcfg data for all possible target frequencies */
+ /* parse bios data for all rammap table entries up-front, and
+ * build information on whether certain fields differ between
+ * any of the entries.
+ *
+ * the binary driver appears to completely ignore some fields
+ * when all entries contain the same value. at first, it was
+ * hoped that these were mere optimisations and the bios init
+ * tables had configured as per the values here, but there is
+ * evidence now to suggest that this isn't the case and we do
+ * need to treat this condition as a "don't touch" indicator.
+ */
for (i = 0; !ret; i++) {
ret = nve0_ram_ctor_data(ram, ramcfg, i);
if (ret && ret != -ENOENT) {
--
2.34.1