On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 10:42:49PM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> Prior to this patch, we used ERROR=0 as a way of signifying the reset
> was complete. The functionality dates back quite a ways to:
>
> commit f316a42cc49eca73b33d85feb6177e32431747ff
> Author: Ben Gamari <bgamari.foss@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Mon Sep 14 17:48:46 2009 -0400
>
> drm/i915: Hookup chip reset in error handler
>
> I'm not really sure what the motivation for this was originally, but to
> me it makes more sense to have a distinct event for error detection, and
> another event for reset start/finish (since reset is prone to failure).
>
> Signed-off-by: Ben Widawsky <ben@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c
> index 9fe430a..03071d7 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c
> @@ -1436,7 +1436,7 @@ static void i915_error_work_func(struct work_struct *work)
> struct drm_device *dev = dev_priv->dev;
> struct intel_ring_buffer *ring;
> char *reset_event[] = { "RESET=1", NULL };
> - char *reset_done_event[] = { "ERROR=0", NULL };
> + char *reset_done_event[] = { "RESET=0", NULL };
It's a kernel api change so we need to check all distros and everything
else out there whether they don't use it. Imo not worth the effort since
signalling that the ERROR condition has passed is somewhat sensible, too.
Can you please respin with this part dropped?
-Daniel
--
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
+41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
