On Tue, 21 Oct 2014 16:50:12 +0300 Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 07:15:27AM -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote: > > On Thu, 11 Sep 2014 14:59:35 +0300 > > Imre Deak <imre.deak@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > On Thu, 2014-09-11 at 08:49 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > > > > On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 06:17:01PM +0300, Imre Deak wrote: > > > > > Since correctness wins over optimal code and since the > > > > > optimization > > > > > > > > Optimal code is also correct ;-) s/optimal/just plain broken/ > > > > > > Yes, bad wording. To clarify, since the optimization is now > > > always off anyway (and it's also broken), I would hope that we > > > could remove it for now and concentrate on fixing the existing > > > s/r issues. Once we find that things are stable enough we could > > > add back this optimization. > > > > Arg, I guess we didn't test after moving to the opregion test? Or > > maybe it was working when it landed for S3 and not for S4? Or > > broke sometime after it landed? > > > > Anyway this is a really valuable optimization for resume time on > > some platforms, and really we shouldn't have other agents > > clobbering our GTT on resume, so I'd really like to fix/re-add it > > asap. > > If/when we add this back I would suggest that we also add a sanity > check that can be enabled with drm.debug which would verify the GTT > mapping are what we expect. That way at least most developer would > have it enabled and we'd catch problems earlier, and also bug > reporters would be forced to enable it when we ask for dmesg w/ > debugs. Yeah we had that awhile back iirc, but I think it got bikeshedded to death. I'd be happy if someone resurrected it; I'd give it an r-b without suggesting more sophisticated checksum algorithms. :) http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/intel-gfx/2012-September/020305.html Jesse _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
