On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 01:40:00PM +0300, Martin Peres wrote: > On 26/05/17 14:48, Chris Wilson wrote: > >If we do a shallow probe of the connector and it reports the link failed > >previous (link-status != GOOD), force a full probe of the connector to > >give the kernel a chance to validate the mode list. > > Sounds good, but will this make the tests SKIP if no modes are available? I'm actually not sure what will happen if the mode is removed. I think the tests are just using the first mode in the list? At the moment I hope just to stop turning a single failure into many, it is still a bug that the link training failed and was not recovered. Alternatively, we can ask why isn't the kernel taking the corrective action when presented with a new setcrtc? I'm not sure what the correct approach here should be, just what is the contract the kernel is expecting of userspace? Should that contract apply to new clients unaware of the earlier error? -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
