On Sat, Mar 08, 2014 at 08:58:24PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Sat, Mar 8, 2014 at 7:50 PM, Ben Widawsky <ben@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I've seen this too. Though I think the WARN does coincide with what the > > docs state - it doesn't seem to match reality. So I totally agree this > > is the right course. > > > > However, for my curiosity, Chris, can you elaborate on why you think it > > doesn't make sense? > > Our current fifo code would be broken - we stall for the fifo entries > to refill if the value drops below NUM_FIFO_ENTRIES_RESERVED. Hence if > the register value is zero right after reset, something is terribly > broken. > -Daniel Oh that's right. fifo_entries should be MAX, not 0. Wonder if that one would WARN. Anyway, I'm not actually sure if MAX is always known, so probably a stupid idea anyway. -- Ben Widawsky, Intel Open Source Technology Center _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
