On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 10:19:20AM -0800, Ben Widawsky wrote: > On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 02:21:08PM +0000, Damien Lespiau wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 02:09:33PM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote: > > > Patches look fine. Just relying on fuse registers being correct is like > > > relying on vbt being correct, fraught with anxiety. > > > > Well, I believe those bits are directly reflecting the fuses/straps > > programmed (the sames that will actually disable hw), so it should be > > better than VBT. On the other hand, that's the reason why I only check > > from IVB on and not from ILK to not take unecessary risks on platforms > > with no known fused config. > > I'm surprised by this. We had a semi-lengthy mail on the matter > internally, and ISTR there was no way to actually make this work for all > cases. I guess I need to go re-read that. Oh? I must have missed it or it wasn't broadcasted. Mind digging out the thread again? > > In any case, if someone with such a device could test the series :) > > IMHO the patches can't be merged until it can be verified. If you want > to call that a nak-until-then on patch 6, do. I'd much rather have a > dynamic solution like this though. Yes, of course! (I'd like to have the writable info in any case). -- Damien _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
