On 7/11/19 1:45 PM, Daniele Ceraolo Spurio wrote:
<snip>
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/selftests/i915_selftest.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/selftests/i915_selftest.c
@@ -256,7 +256,7 @@ int __i915_live_setup(void *data)
{
struct drm_i915_private *i915 = data;
- return i915_terminally_wedged(i915);
+ return intel_gt_terminally_wedged(&i915->gt);
}
int __i915_live_teardown(int err, void *data)
@@ -273,6 +273,27 @@ int __i915_live_teardown(int err, void *data)
return err;
}
+int __intel_gt_live_setup(void *data)
+{
+ struct intel_gt *gt = data;
+
+ return intel_gt_terminally_wedged(gt);
+}
+
+int __intel_gt_live_teardown(int err, void *data)
+{
+ struct intel_gt *gt = data;
+
+ mutex_lock(>->i915->drm.struct_mutex);
+ if (igt_flush_test(gt->i915, I915_WAIT_LOCKED))
+ err = -EIO;
+ mutex_unlock(>->i915->drm.struct_mutex);
+
+ i915_gem_drain_freed_objects(gt->i915);
+
+ return err;
+}
this is basically a copy of __i915_live_teardown, it might be worth
having one of the 2 functions call into the other if you're not planning
to have them diverge in the short term.
s/intel_gpu_reset/intel_gt_reset/ also didn't materialize but I'm happy
for that to come later.
Reviewed-by: Daniele Ceraolo Spurio <daniele.ceraolospurio@xxxxxxxxx>
I've replied to the wrong version of this patch, the one I've actually
reviewed is the one in the 18 patches series. They look pretty much the
same anyway, but I'm clarifying anyway in case there is a difference I
missed.
Daniele
P.S.: if you have to respin for other reasons, it'd be nice if you could
use a local i915 variable where there are a lot of s/i915/gt->i915/ to
keep the diff smaller :P
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
