Quoting Summers, Stuart (2019-11-22 01:58:49) > On Thu, 2019-11-21 at 23:30 +0000, Chris Wilson wrote: > > Use our more regular igt_flush_test() to bind the wait-for-idle and > > error out instead of waiting around forever on critical failure. > > > > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx> > > Yeah, seems like a better approach here. Should we just be passing gt > to that though? Doesn't look like we actually use the private data > outside of that. Of course that's completely unrelated to this change. Yes/no. We actually need two igt_flush_test() variants, one gt centric and one device centric. I do have a patch to convert igt_flush_test over to intel_gt, and while that looks better inside gt/, outside it frequently looks revolting. So that patch got shelved until someone finds a moment to sort out the names and semantics we need. -Chris _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
