On Wed, 09 Sep 2015, Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 04:41:04PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: >> On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 06:28:50PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote: >> > On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 09:16:11PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: >> > > Would it make sense to disable dvfs after a failure as well, >> > > then the user is shown a single DRM_ERROR at runtime and we should >> > > recover (by not going to the full WM next time)? >> > >> > I wouldn't expect any failures after we've determined that it works. >> > That would indicate Punit going belly up or something, and then I'm >> > not sure anything would work anymore. >> >> We didn't expect any before either :) And it sounds like you are arguing >> that we should be reducing the noise from the victims as well :) > > Well, I think I'll still leave it as is. People have generally been > opposed to adding code to deal with conditions that should never > happen in real life. > > Should I be proven wrong, you can smack me on the head with a big > "told you so!" sign ;) Isn't that English for dealing with conditions that should never happen? ;) BR, Jani. > > -- > Ville Syrjälä > Intel OTC > _______________________________________________ > Intel-gfx mailing list > Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx -- Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
