On Thu, 08 Sep 2016, Lyude Paul <cpaul@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, 2016-09-08 at 11:59 +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
>> On Wed, 07 Sep 2016, Lyude <cpaul@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Tue, 2016-09-06 at 21:52 -0300, Paulo Zanoni wrote:
>> > > +static bool
>> > > +intel_has_sagv(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
>> > > +{
>> > > + return IS_SKYLAKE(dev_priv);
>> > > +}
>> > > +
>> >
>> > Not sure I agree on this one. Even if a system is skylake or kabylake,
>> > there's a couple of very early skylake machines that don't actually
>> > have an SAGV on them. Hence the I915_SAGV_NOT_CONTROLLED value we set
>> > if we get mailbox errors.
>>
>> If by "very early" you mean pre-production, we don't care.
>
> The problem is if we don't handle that case though then a couple of
> the machines in CI start failing tests since all of the SAGV mailbox
> commands don't end up working :(
Regardless of whose CI you refer to, no pre-production machines should
be used for CI. Which machines are these?
Can we be sure all production machines have SAGV?
BR,
Jani.
--
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
