On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 03:23:22PM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 15:18:41 +0000, Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk> wrote:
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c
> > index 6ebdf1e..0e3bd04 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c
> > @@ -1087,8 +1087,14 @@ i915_error_first_batchbuffer(struct drm_i915_private *dev
> > if (!ring->get_seqno)
> > return NULL;
> >
> > - if (HAS_BROKEN_CS_TLB(dev_priv->dev))
> > - return i915_error_object_create(dev_priv, ring->private);
> > + if (HAS_BROKEN_CS_TLB(dev_priv->dev)) {
> > + u32 acthd = I915_READ(ACTHD);
>
> All the implicit knowledge here is making me worried:
>
> if (WARN_ON(ring->id != RCS)) return NULL;
Applied both fixups and merged to -fixes, with the little s/<=/</ bikeshed
applied - the potential off-by-one confuses my parser. Let's see how it
holds up.
-Daniel
--
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
+41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch
