DMA ring test failure on Radeon HD 8970M

[Joe Julian]

Alex Deucher <alexdeucher at gmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 8:20 AM, Joe Julian <joe at julianfamily.org>
>wrote:
>>
>>
>> Alex Deucher <alexdeucher at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 7:30 PM, Joe Julian <joe at julianfamily.org>
>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>> This MSI laptop has two crossfire connected video processors in it,
>>>> 00:01.0 has a HD 8650G that seems to initialize properly, and at
>>>01:00.0
>>>> an HD 8970M that fails the ring 3 test, "radeon: ring 3 test failed
>>>(0xDFCFFBFF)".
>>>
>>>It looks like there's a problem with the rom for the dGPU:
>>>
>>>[   61.008250] ACPI Error: Field [TEMP] at 524288 exceeds Buffer
>>>[TVGA] size 512000 (bits) (20130927/dsopcode-236)
>>>[   61.008749] ACPI Error: Method parse/execution failed
>>>[\_SB_.PCI0.VGA_.ATRM] (Node ffff880233ad1e30), AE_AML_BUFFER_LIMIT
>>>(20130927/psparse-536)
>>>[   61.009991] failed to evaluate ATRM got AE_AML_BUFFER_LIMIT
>>>[   61.010204] ATOM BIOS: MSI
>>>[   61.010270] [drm] GPU not posted. posting now...
>>>[   61.018737] radeon 0000:01:00.0: limiting VRAM
>>>[   61.018765] radeon 0000:01:00.0: VRAM: 1047552M 0x0000000000000000
>>>- 0x000000FFBFFFFFFF (1047552M used)
>>>[   61.018814] radeon 0000:01:00.0: GTT: 1024M 0x000000FFC0000000 -
>>>0x000000FFFFFFFFFF
>>>[   61.018853] [drm] Detected VRAM RAM=1047552M, BAR=256M
>>>
>>>1047552M of vram is obviously wrong.  How much vram is supposed to be
>>>on the card?
>>
>> According to Windows, 2GB:
>> Name    AMD Radeon(TM) HD8970M
>> PNP Device ID   
>PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_6801&SUBSYS_10F11462&REV_00\4&99EBB28&0&0018
>> Adapter Type    AMD Radeon Graphics Processor (0x6801), Advanced
>Micro Devices, Inc. compatible
>> Adapter Description    AMD Radeon(TM) HD8970M
>> Adapter RAM    (2,147,483,648) bytes
>> Installed Drivers   
>aticfx64.dll,aticfx64.dll,aticfx64.dll,aticfx32,aticfx32,aticfx32,atiumd64.dll,atidxx64.dll,atidxx64.dll,atiumdag,atidxx32,atidxx32,atiumdva,atiumd6a.cap,atitmm64.dll
>> Driver Version    13.200.11.0
>> INF File    oem17.inf (ati2mtag_R576B section)
>> Color Planes    Not Available
>> Color Table Entries    4294967296
>> Resolution    1920 x 1080 x 60 hertz
>> Bits/Pixel    32
>> Memory Address    0xD0000000-0xDFFFFFFF
>> Memory Address    0xFEAC0000-0xFEAFFFFF
>> I/O Port    0x0000EF00-0x0000EFFF
>> IRQ Channel    IRQ 4294967283
>>>
>>>Can you send me the output from this patch?
>>>
>>>diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/si.c
>b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/si.c
>>>index 6a64cca..84a7e26 100644
>>>--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/si.c
>>>+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/si.c
>>>@@ -3884,6 +3884,7 @@ static int si_mc_init(struct radeon_device
>*rdev)
>>>        /* size in MB on si */
>>>    rdev->mc.mc_vram_size = RREG32(CONFIG_MEMSIZE) * 1024ULL *
>1024ULL;
>>>  rdev->mc.real_vram_size = RREG32(CONFIG_MEMSIZE) * 1024ULL *
>1024ULL;
>>>+       DRM_INFO("CONFIG_MEMSIZE: 0x%08x\n", RREG32(CONFIG_MEMSIZE));
>>>        rdev->mc.visible_vram_size = rdev->mc.aper_size;
>>>        si_vram_gtt_location(rdev, &rdev->mc);
>>>        radeon_update_bandwidth_info(rdev);
>>>
>>>
>> CONFIG_MEMSIZE=0X03800800
>
>Does this patch fix the issues?
>
>Alex
>
>
>>>>
>>>> Throwing in some writel and readl tests before even trying the dma
>>>test,
>>>> I see that the memory isn't being changed with writel in the first
>>>> place.
>>>>
>>>> ----
>>>>         tmp = 0xDEADBEEF;
>>>>         writel(tmp, ptr);
>>>>         tmp = readl(ptr);
>>>>         if (tmp != 0xDEADBEEF)
>>>>                 DRM_ERROR("radeon: ring %d memory write failed (0x%
>>>> 08X)\n", ring->idx, tmp);
>>>> ----
>>>>
>>>> radeon: ring 3 memory write failed (0xDFCFFBFF)
>>>>
>>>> Looks to me like we're trying to write to a rom address, but I'm a
>>>> complete novice at this so I could be completely off.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm using kernel 3.13.0-0.rc1.git3
>>>>
>>>> What else could I look at?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> xorg-driver-ati mailing list
>>>> xorg-driver-ati at lists.x.org
>>>> http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-driver-ati
>>>>
>>

No. Other than the additional dmesg line there are no other changes.