On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 5:29 PM, Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Yeah I've seen the other patches. I think we should try to keep all the >> ring structures around even when the hw init failed. I've made some feeble >> attempts a while ago to split the structure init from the hw init stuff, >> but kinda never fully materialized ... >> >> Imo if our set of valid rings semi-randomly changes at runtime even, >> that's not good. > > Agreed, but sadly we can't trust hardware to always work, and we need > something to prevent explosions. I quite like the idea of marking the > GPU wedged if hw init fails so that we lose acceleration but keep > modesetting around. Yeah, I agree that the other two patches are neat indeed, it's this one here where the shiny starts to come off a bit ;-) tbh I'd prefer a simply if (terminally_wedged) return -EIO; here before the ring checks, maybe with a comment stating why we need to have this order. That, or fix the mess called ring init code ... -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
