This is a simplied version of the fix by Roy in fdo#93629. While this
doesn't appear to fix the issues for the users in that report, it's a
real issue that deserves to be resolved.
Reported-by: Roy Spliet <rspliet@eclipso.eu>
Signed-off-by: Ben Skeggs <bskeggs@redhat.com>
Also removes an XXX; according to nvgpu headers the field is called
NV_PGRAPH_GPCS_SWDX_TC_BETA_CB_SIZE_DIV3, so, apparently not some
magic we need to figure out :)
Signed-off-by: Ben Skeggs <bskeggs@redhat.com>
This was really inconsistent, some implementations could touch PPCs
that didn't exist, others neglected to touch ones that did.
Signed-off-by: Ben Skeggs <bskeggs@redhat.com>
We always want a equal or higher voltage than the requested ones, otherwise
nouveau undervolts.
Signed-off-by: Karol Herbst <nouveau@karolherbst.de>
Signed-off-by: Ben Skeggs <bskeggs@redhat.com>
Appears to more closely match what RM does.
For GM20B, now also copying bit 12 from NV_PFB_MMU_CTRL as upcoming
changes will require it.
Signed-off-by: Ben Skeggs <bskeggs@redhat.com>
It appears these don't map to PBDMAs (at least on Kepler, it may or may
be valid for Fermi - this hasn't been checked), but to runlists.
This drops the NVKM_ENGINE_FIFO data from the entries too, as resetting
all of PFIFO is *not* the way to handle such faults.
Signed-off-by: Ben Skeggs <bskeggs@redhat.com>
With the addition of PTOP-specified reset bits, it makes more sense to
move the definitions here rather than in individual subdev
implementations.
Signed-off-by: Ben Skeggs <bskeggs@redhat.com>
v2: rename ina209/ina219 read function
Signed-off-by: Karol Herbst <nouveau@karolherbst.de>
Reviewed-by: Martin Peres <martin.peres@free.fr>
Signed-off-by: Ben Skeggs <bskeggs@redhat.com>
v2: add list_del call, reword error message
Signed-off-by: Karol Herbst <nouveau@karolherbst.de>
Reviewed-by: Martin Peres <martin.peres@free.fr>
Signed-off-by: Ben Skeggs <bskeggs@redhat.com>
v2: add list_del calls
Signed-off-by: Karol Herbst <nouveau@karolherbst.de>
Reviewed-by: Martin Peres <martin.peres@free.fr>
Signed-off-by: Ben Skeggs <bskeggs@redhat.com>
When we start communicating with the pmu a bit more, the current code is
a real issue. I encountered a dead lock here, while testing my dynamic
reclocking code
Signed-off-by: Karol Herbst <nouveau@karolherbst.de>
Signed-off-by: Ben Skeggs <bskeggs@redhat.com>
In case of successful suspend, devinit will have to be run and this is
the behavior currently hardcoded. However, as FD bug 94725 suggests,
there might be cases where runtime suspend leaves the GPU powered, and
in such cases devinit should not be run on resume.
On GF100+ we have a reliable way to know whether we need to run devinit.
Use it instead of blindly trusting the flag set by nvkm_devinit_fini().
The code around the NvForcePost also needs to be slightly reworked in
order to keep working.
Signed-off-by: Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@nvidia.com>
Suggested-by: Dave Airlie <airlied@redhat.com>
Suggested-by: Karol Herbst <nouveau@karolherbst.de>
Signed-off-by: Ben Skeggs <bskeggs@redhat.com>
