Quoting Joonas Lahtinen (2017-10-31 14:14:52) > On Mon, 2017-10-30 at 13:17 -0700, Oscar Mateo wrote: > > By doing this, we can dump these workarounds in debugfs for validation (which, > > at the moment, we are only able to do for the contexts WAs). > > > > v2: > > - Wrong macro used for MMIO set bit masked > > - Improved naming > > - Rebased > > > > v3: > > - GT instead of MMIO (Chris, Mika) > > - Leave L3_PRIO_CREDITS_MASK for a separate patch > > - Rebased > > > > v4: Carry the init_early nomenclature over (Chris) > > > > Signed-off-by: Oscar Mateo <oscar.mateo@xxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Mika Kuoppala <mika.kuoppala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > This and the following patch are still a no-go and won't be merged. The > required changes for the series to be accepted (to make it more > declarative) were clearly described previously. If there are further > questions, we should discuss those instead wasting time looking at > respins that do not address the input given. I would like draw everyone's attention to https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=103549 As much as I don't like gem_workarounds for its incestrous relationship with the kernel it purports to be testing, that bug is exactly the type of regression it prevents. It could not find this regression because it requires us to be very formal in our w/a handling, i.e. we had not declared the w/a for it to check; such formality being sought after here. Whatever the design outcome, a good test plan is essential. -Chris _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
