Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Quoting Mika Kuoppala (2020-02-05 14:03:14)
>> Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>> > We have been using '-1' to mean the maximum i915.reset level in the
>> > belief that it was unsigned... This turns out to have been a grave
>> > error, and instead of setting the default reset mechanism in igt,
>> > we have been disabling reset!
>>
>> Disabling engine reset?
>
> Hmm, Right,
>
> bool intel_has_gpu_reset(const struct intel_gt *gt)
> {
> if (!i915_modparams.reset)
> return NULL;
>
> return intel_get_gpu_reset(gt);
> }
>
> bool intel_has_reset_engine(const struct intel_gt *gt)
> {
> if (i915_modparams.reset < 2)
> return false;
>
> return INTEL_INFO(gt->i915)->has_reset_engine;
> }
>
> just engine-reset. Still that wasn't the intention when setting -1.
I was trying to correlate the graveness to the code.
Glad that we agree. With commit message pointing to per engine
reset,
Reviewed-by: Mika Kuoppala <mika.kuoppala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> -Chris
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
