On Fri, Jul 05, 2013 at 11:02:48PM +0300, Ville Syrj?l? wrote: > On Fri, Jul 05, 2013 at 12:51:54PM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 05, 2013 at 04:48:18PM +0300, ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com wrote: > > > I was going over the workaround database with VLV mainly in mind, but I > > > ended up stumbling on quite a few others as well. > > > > > > This series adds the workarounds names in a bunch of places where we > > > missed them, adds a few workarounds we seem to have missed, drops some > > > that were never supposed to be there, and drops quite a few pre-production > > > workarounds. > > > > > > I'm not sure we want to drop some of the VLV workarounds quite yet. I know > > > Jani will hate me when he comes back from vacation since his current machine > > > would be affected. > > > > > > I've run these on my VLV and IVB machines, and didn't spot any problems. > > > The SNB and HSW ones I've not actually tested. > > > > I have a sneaking suspicion at least a few of these will blow up once > > their in the wild. You're trusting the docs an awful lot. At least the > > patches seem quite bisectable though, so that's a saving grace. > > Yeah I wanted to keep them as isolated as possible just for that reason. > > > One thing which might be interesting/compelling is some performance data > > (especially around places where you've removed unneeded workarounds). > > Some power consumption numbers migth be nice, since quite a few are > clock gating related. > > There are plenty of options to deal with the risk: > - Throw the patches away and pretend they never existed > - Merge them all and watch out for fireworks > - Drop a few of them into every kernel release to avoid too > many regressions at once. I guess it'll take a few years > get through the list this way. Imo review them again, drop them into dinq, see what happens. If they blow up we can yell at the Bsepc or w/a guys ;-) -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch
