Quoting Ville Syrjälä (2018-02-07 14:44:39) > On Wed, Feb 07, 2018 at 04:41:43PM +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 07, 2018 at 10:08:45AM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote: > > > After we assert the reset request (and wait for 20us), when the device > > > has been fully reset it asserts the reset-status bit. Before we stop > > > requesting the reset and allow the device to return to normal, we should > > > wait for the reset to be completed. (Similar to how we wait for the > > > device to return to normal after deasserting the reset request.) > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > Cc: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.c | 12 ++++++++++-- > > > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.c > > > index 612aad205b59..dd86428774da 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.c > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.c > > > @@ -1555,19 +1555,27 @@ static bool i915_reset_complete(struct pci_dev *pdev) > > > u8 gdrst; > > > > > > pci_read_config_byte(pdev, I915_GDRST, &gdrst); > > > - return (gdrst & GRDOM_RESET_STATUS) == 0; > > > + return gdrst & GRDOM_RESET_STATUS; > > Doh. Failed to notice this change. The function name is perhaps a bit > confusing now since it doesn't match the meaning of the g4x version. > Maybe rename this guy? i915_gpu_in_reset() or something? Fwiw, <3>[ 291.416895] wait-for-asserted took 3705ns <3>[ 291.417570] wait-for-unasserted took 3334ns So it seems like the usleep()s were doing their job. -Chris _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
