Hi Jani, > *cringe* at adding a parameter to workaround issues. I understand that *each* parameter has the potential to *multiply* the total number of configurations and that the resulting combinatorial explosion is absolutely not scalable and sustainable from a validation perspective. No one should expect to get support here when options like this one are set to a non-default value. When something breaks on the other hand, transparent _test_ knobs like this one have proved invaluable countless times to help troubleshoot and isolate issues. It's at least 10 times more productive to ask a non-expert in some opposite timezone "please test again after rebooting with this parameter" compared to "test again after applying this patch, recompiling, etc." - assuming the latter has any chance of success at all. I'm speaking from actual experience as we are routinely experiencing both type of situations. I hope the "unsafe" part of "i915_param_named_unsafe" provides a permanent solution to both problems by making a clear distinction between the only one single true supported configuration on one hand versus test datapoints on the other hand. Same for "tainted", sysfs or else. Marc _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
