On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 08:48:05AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 2:04 PM, Damien Lespiau > <damien.lespiau@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 12:24:19PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > >> On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 01:19:09PM +0200, Michał Winiarski wrote: > >> > When reading the timestamp register with single 64b read, we are observing > >> > invalid values on x86_64: > >> > > >> > [f = valid counter value | X = garbage] > >> > > >> > i386: 0x0000000fffffffff > >> > x86_64: 0xffffffffXXXXXXXX > >> > > >> > Test checks if the counter is moving and increasing. > >> > Add a check to see if we can use (reg | 1) flag to get a proper 36b timestamp, > >> > shifting the value on x86_64 if we can't. > >> > > >> > v2: More iterations of monotonic test, comments, minor fixups (Chris) > >> > v3: Skip tests if reg_read is not supported > >> > > >> > Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> > Signed-off-by: Michał Winiarski <michal.winiarski@xxxxxxxxx> > >> > >> Lgtm, > >> Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Pushed! thanks for the patch and review. > > This is a testcase for new abi and the kernel side hasn't landed yet. > Intentional breach of procedures? Nop, was just overlooked. -- Damien _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
