On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 5:54 PM, Paulo Zanoni <przanoni@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 2014/1/16 Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx>: >> Our init_clock_gating functions and related code should already take >> care of this. And if they don't we'd better know. > > For both registers, I see functions applying specific workarounds, but > they only do the read-write-modify through _MASKED_BIT_ENABLE(). I > don't see anybody explicitly fully initializing the registers > anywhere. So we go with whatever the BIOS gives us at boot + our > changes to a few specific registers. At resume, we don't know so far > what we'll get, so I fear this patch may in fact cause a regression. That's part of the risk of it, but fixing those is a simple matter of comparing register dumps. These two bits here are one of the very few holdouts we have that depend upon the register save/restore code, and I want to remove them. Since thus far this was a really good way to hide random bugs. -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
