On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 12:49:13 -0800, Ben Widawsky <ben at bwidawsk.net> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 06:29:12PM -0200, Paulo Zanoni wrote: > > From: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni at intel.com> > > > > Some developers don't really like this code polluting I915_WRITE, and > > we've never really measured its negative impacts. So now that we > > properly print ERR_INT interrupts, let's remove the I915_WRITE code > > and promote the interrupt error message to DRM_ERROR. > > > > The downside of this change is that we lose the ability to check the > > register and print nice backtraces, but at this point most of the > > errors have already been fixed and we're investigating the few > > remaining cases. > > > > Signed-off-by: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni at intel.com> > > I'm really sad to see this go. Especially since our time between new > platform bring-up is decreasing so much. If I were to guess right, every > developer working on a new platform would want this. So while HSW may be > in the clear, HSW+1 suffers. I don't like the extra work per iowrite32, but I can live with for the error-detection. I would rather remove it for special cases where it has demonstrable impact, perhaps in execbuffer. However, you can equally lay the blame there for execbuffer hitting i915_write32 too often. So even there I am not convinced that speeding up i915_write32 is the best approach. So NAKed-by: Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk> unless you can find a way to work out the faulting register address in the interrupt or that is the only method going forward. -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre
