On Thu, 20 Mar 2014, David Woodhouse <dwmw2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, 2014-03-20 at 09:36 +0200, Jani Nikula wrote: >> >> Or an additional knob, in case it's really not working and people want >> to get other things depending on prelim hw support done. > > Yeah. Perhaps the best answer is a 'disable_silicon_workarounds' option, > to disable *all* workarounds for silicon bugs. Couple that with a printk > telling the user that workarounds are disabled *and* VT-d is enabled. > > That's a nice simple thing for the chipset validation folks to be > looking for. Unless they see that and have no issues with either > framebuffer or X, the chipset hasn't been tested. > > That aside, I'm also unhappy with your patch on general principles. As a > rule I'd like to see references to a *specific* published erratum, for > anything we disable. Otherwise we're just admitting that life is too > hard and we *never* bother to test our silicon before we ship it and we > *expect* it to be broken. > > If we chase broken hardware to the point where errata are published, we > should hopefully ensure that the problem feeds back to the validation > folks who haven't done their job properly. Every time. > > (Pondered making this an internal email, but hey — *you're* the one who > said "our hardware is always broken and we don't even bother to track > individual brokenness". I'm just translating it into English from what's > in your patch :) I'll have to dodge this particular discussion, just because it was really Chris' patch which I merely repainted with colours requested by our resident interior designer Daniel. ;) BR, Jani. > > -- > dwmw2 > > _______________________________________________ > Intel-gfx mailing list > Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx -- Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
