On Mon, Jan 17, 2022 at 6:38 AM Akhil P Oommen quic_akhilpo@quicinc.com wrote:
On 1/13/2022 12:43 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jan 2022 at 00:19, Rob Clark robdclark@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 1:31 PM Akhil P Oommen quic_akhilpo@quicinc.com wrote:
Expose speedbin through MSM_PARAM_CHIP_ID parameter to help userspace identify the sku.
Signed-off-by: Akhil P Oommen quic_akhilpo@quicinc.com
drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/adreno_gpu.c | 9 +++++---- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/adreno_gpu.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/adreno_gpu.c index f33cfa4..e970e6a 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/adreno_gpu.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/adreno_gpu.c @@ -242,10 +242,11 @@ int adreno_get_param(struct msm_gpu *gpu, uint32_t param, uint64_t *value) *value = !adreno_is_a650_family(adreno_gpu) ? 0x100000 : 0; return 0; case MSM_PARAM_CHIP_ID:
*value = adreno_gpu->rev.patchid |(adreno_gpu->rev.minor << 8) |(adreno_gpu->rev.major << 16) |(adreno_gpu->rev.core << 24);
*value = (uint64_t) adreno_gpu->rev.patchid |(uint64_t) (adreno_gpu->rev.minor << 8) |(uint64_t) (adreno_gpu->rev.major << 16) |(uint64_t) (adreno_gpu->rev.core << 24) |(((uint64_t) adreno_gpu->rev.sku) << 32);How about this instead, so we are only changing the behavior for new/unreleased devices:
I thought this property was only used for new devices whereas the existing devices rely on REVN.
-Akhil.
*value = adreno_gpu->rev.patchid | (adreno_gpu->rev.minor << 8) | (adreno_gpu->rev.major << 16) | (adreno_gpu->rev.core << 24); if (!adreno_gpu->info->revn) *value |= (((uint64_t) adreno_gpu->rev.sku) << 32);
(sorry about the butchered indentation.. somehow gmail has become antagonistic about pasting code)
I assume that you would like to keep userspace compat for older chips. thus the if. Maybe we should introduce MSM_PARAM_CHIP_ID_SKU instead (and gradually make userspace switch to it)?
Existing userspace tools do query CHIP_ID, but match based on GPU_ID (falling back to CHIP_ID only if GPU_ID==0).. still, out of an abundance of caution, we should probably not change the behavior for existing GPUs. But so far the only thing with GPU_ID==0 does not exist in the wild yet, so I think we can get away without having to introduce a new param if we only set the upper bits of CHIP_ID when GPU_ID==0.
BR, -R