Implement preemption for A5XX targets - this allows multiple
ringbuffers for different priorities with automatic preemption
of a lower priority ringbuffer if a higher one is ready.
Signed-off-by: Jordan Crouse <jcrouse@codeaurora.org>
Signed-off-by: Rob Clark <robdclark@gmail.com>
Add a shadow pointer to track the current command being written into
the ring. Don't commit it as 'cur' until the command is submitted.
Because 'cur' is used to construct the software copy of the wptr this
ensures that somebody peeking in on the ring doesn't assume that a
command is inflight while it is being written. This isn't a huge deal
with a single ring (though technically the hangcheck could assume
the system is prematurely busy when it isn't) but it will be rather
important for preemption where the decision to preempt is based
on a non-empty ringbuffer. Without a shadow an aggressive preemption
scheme could assume that the ringbuffer is non empty and switch to it
before the CPU is done writing the command and boom.
Even though preemption won't be supported for all targets because of
the way the code is organized it is simpler to make this generic for
all targets. The extra load for non-preemption targets should be
minimal.
Signed-off-by: Jordan Crouse <jcrouse@codeaurora.org>
Signed-off-by: Rob Clark <robdclark@gmail.com>
Add the infrastructure to support the idea of multiple ringbuffers.
Assign each ringbuffer an id and use that as an index for the various
ring specific operations.
The biggest delta is to support legacy fences. Each fence gets its own
sequence number but the legacy functions expect to use a unique integer.
To handle this we return a unique identifier for each submission but
map it to a specific ring/sequence under the covers. Newer users use
a dma_fence pointer anyway so they don't care about the actual sequence
ID or ring.
The actual mechanics for multiple ringbuffers are very target specific
so this code just allows for the possibility but still only defines
one ringbuffer for each target family.
Signed-off-by: Jordan Crouse <jcrouse@codeaurora.org>
Signed-off-by: Rob Clark <robdclark@gmail.com>
Add initial support for a3xx 3d core.
So far, with hardware that I've seen to date, we can have:
+ zero, one, or two z180 2d cores
+ a3xx or a2xx 3d core, which share a common CP (the firmware
for the CP seems to implement some different PM4 packet types
but the basics of cmdstream submission are the same)
Which means that the eventual complete "class" hierarchy, once
support for all past and present hw is in place, becomes:
+ msm_gpu
+ adreno_gpu
+ a3xx_gpu
+ a2xx_gpu
+ z180_gpu
This commit splits out the parts that will eventually be common
between a2xx/a3xx into adreno_gpu, and the parts that are even
common to z180 into msm_gpu.
Note that there is no cmdstream validation required. All memory access
from the GPU is via IOMMU/MMU. So as long as you don't map silly things
to the GPU, there isn't much damage that the GPU can do.
Signed-off-by: Rob Clark <robdclark@gmail.com>
Jordan Crouse