On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 03:55:07PM +0100, Nick Hoath wrote: > >This is the wrong location. Just kill set_seqno, the experiment has run > >its course and we now have a n igt to exercise seqno wraparound. > It has to be here as the seqno has to be initialised before it is > used to create requests for the initialisation. It is the wrong location as init_hw() is called as part of resume and reset, both times where we don't want to actually touch seqno. > According to the commit history, the seqno has to be initialised to > non-zero for proper functioning. Is this no longer true? > Maybe it should just be set to 1 instead of ~0-0x1000 Nope. It was set to non-zero purely to test wraparound, or rather the call to set_seqno was added purely to test wraparound. Nowadays, we can just set it to 1 and use explicit testing to catch bugs. -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
