Quoting Michal Wajdeczko (2018-05-29 16:10:44) > On Tue, 29 May 2018 16:54:12 +0200, Chris Wilson > <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Quoting Michal Wajdeczko (2018-05-28 18:16:18) > >> SOFT_SCRATCH(15) is used by GuC for sending MMIO GuC events to host and > >> those events are now handled by intel_guc_to_host_event_handler_mmio(). > >> > >> We should not try to read it on MMIO action error as 1) we may be using > >> different set of registers for GuC MMIO communication, and 2) GuC may > >> use CTB mechanism for sending events to host. > > > > Ok. > > > >> While here, upgrade error message to DRM_ERROR. > > > > Does the error help? What do you want to convey to the user? For error > > handling, we want to propagate the result back anyway for the caller has > > to decide what to do next. > > We are propagating error code to the caller, but since any error from the > GuC is unexpected, we should rather always log it and don't rely on the > caller or drm debug for that. Note that in case of CTB we also log received > errors using DRM_ERROR (see intel_guc_send_ct). But whose error? Ours or the hw? We expect hw errors, or should ;) But mostly from the pov of the message, is this the right information to flag as the error or does the caller have better context? -Chris _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
