On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 01:24:47PM +0300, ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Refactor the code a bit to split the watermark level validity check into > a separate function. > > Also add hack there that allows us to use it even for LP0 watermarks. > ATM we don't pre-compute/check the LP0 watermarks, so we just have to > clamp them to the maximum and hope things work out. > > v2: Add some debug prints when we exceed max WM0 > Kill pointless ret = false' assignment. > Include the check for the already disabled 'result' which > got shuffled around when the patchs got reorderd > > Signed-off-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> I still think we are missing a log entry of what watermark values we pick, but the most important issue of having to clamp the values is logged. Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
