On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 09:47:57AM -0700, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 08:12:28AM -0700, Volkin, Bradley D wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 11:20:30PM -0700, Chris Wilson wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 02:22:16PM -0700, bradley.d.volkin@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > > From: Brad Volkin <bradley.d.volkin@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > The command parser in newer kernels will reject it and setting this > > > > bit is not required for the actual test case. > > > > > > > > Bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=76670 > > > > Signed-off-by: Brad Volkin <bradley.d.volkin@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > This was written how I did in the ddx... > > > > Oh, I thought you had said that the ddx didn't use MI_STORE_REGISTER_MEM, and > > I didn't see it used in the current ddx code, so I thought that part of the > > test wasn't relevant to the actual workaround. It looked like it was just a > > write so we could see the values and check that they were updated. But if it > > is, then yeah, I don't want to change the test behavior. > > Hm right I think Chris said that in the ended he never released a ddx > version with this code. Now I'm indeed rather confused what's going on. If > we don't need it I obviously prefer less complexity in the kernel cmd > parser. Chris, can you help clarify this? Thanks, Brad > -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
