2014-04-02 8:27 GMT-03:00 Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > On Wed, Apr 02, 2014 at 12:23:51PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 02, 2014 at 12:21:45PM +0100, Damien Lespiau wrote: >> > On Tue, Apr 01, 2014 at 03:37:27PM -0300, Paulo Zanoni wrote: >> > > From: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni@xxxxxxxxx> >> > > >> > > We should only enable interrupts at postinstall. >> > > >> > > And now on ILK/SNB/IVB/HSW the irq_preinstall and irq_postinstall >> > > functions leave the hardware in the same state. >> > > >> > > Signed-off-by: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni@xxxxxxxxx> >> > >> > Orthogonal note to this patch, I'm wondering why we enable any interrupt >> > reporting in the HW status page, I don't see anywhere we read that >> > information back? Any idea? >> >> Back in the SNB days, interrupts broke without this piece of magic. > > To be more precise, iirc, it was a step towards getting coherent > breadcrumb writes into the HWS. As it turns out, there were more steps > required. Considering that it can now probably be dropped again? Any > takers? I noticed the HWSTAM code looks weird, but I don't really know much about why it's there, so I decided to not add any regressions. I wrote this patch a long time ago, and gave up on upstreaming it, but in case anybody wants, I can send it to the list: http://cgit.freedesktop.org/~pzanoni/linux/commit/?h=c8-wip&id=7ebe245a2c55379ddc7b36f1fb440215c23f1570 . Look at the commit message, it may be an interesting starting point if anybody wants to dig on the issue... > -Chris > > -- > Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre -- Paulo Zanoni _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
