Quoting Michal Wajdeczko (2018-03-06 09:48:14) > On Mon, 05 Mar 2018 23:21:21 +0100, Daniele Ceraolo Spurio > > static __always_inline void dup_param(const char *type, void *x) > > @@ -1749,13 +1744,12 @@ static int capture(void *data) > > capture_params(error); > > capture_uc_state(error); > > - > > - i915_capture_gen_state(error->i915, error); > > - i915_capture_reg_state(error->i915, error); > > - i915_gem_record_fences(error->i915, error); > > - i915_gem_record_rings(error->i915, error); > > - i915_capture_active_buffers(error->i915, error); > > - i915_capture_pinned_buffers(error->i915, error); > > + capture_gen_state(error); > > + capture_reg_state(error); > > + gem_record_fences(error); > > + gem_record_rings(error); > > + capture_active_buffers(error); > > + capture_pinned_buffers(error); > > error->overlay = intel_overlay_capture_error_state(error->i915); > > error->display = intel_display_capture_error_state(error->i915); > > also, it looks that we are not consistent in using capture vs. record > verb... Once upon a time, I fancied using it for different effects. Record HW register state, capture user buffers (capture requires allocation and whatnot). Not that I have ever been consistent. -Chris _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
