Let's modify the "workaround lost" error message slightly to make it
more clear what the various numbers represent. Also, the 'expected'
value needs to be &'d with wa->read so that it doesn't include the mask
bits for masked registers (those bits are write-only in the hardware and
will usually always read out as 0's).
Signed-off-by: Matt Roper <matthew.d.roper@xxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_workarounds.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_workarounds.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_workarounds.c
index 42d320e68b60..b0e3a5ba0320 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_workarounds.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_workarounds.c
@@ -1383,9 +1383,9 @@ static bool
wa_verify(const struct i915_wa *wa, u32 cur, const char *name, const char *from)
{
if ((cur ^ wa->set) & wa->read) {
- DRM_ERROR("%s workaround lost on %s! (%x=%x/%x, expected %x)\n",
+ DRM_ERROR("%s workaround lost on %s! (reg[%x]=0x%x, relevant bits were 0x%x vs expected 0x%x)\n",
name, from, i915_mmio_reg_offset(wa->reg),
- cur, cur & wa->read, wa->set);
+ cur, cur & wa->read, wa->set & wa->read);
return false;
}
--
2.24.1
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
