On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 01:39:24PM +0300, Mika Kuoppala wrote: > Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > On Wed, 02 Sep 2015, Arun Siluvery <arun.siluvery@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On 20/08/2015 16:27, Chris Wilson wrote: > >>> On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 05:34:59PM +0300, Mika Kuoppala wrote: > >>>> If we leave the last_retired_head to pre-reset value, we might > >>>> end up in a situation where intel_ring_space() returns wrong > >>>> value on next hardware init. > >>> > >>> http://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/46612/ > >>> and earlier > >>> -Chris > >>> > >> Hi Chris, > >> > >> I see the warning even with below batch, > >> > >> [PATCH 50/70] drm/i915: The argument for postfix is redundant > >> http://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/46601/ > >> > >> the following patch need to be updated as it uses olr, > >> [PATCH 51/70] drm/i915: Record the position of the start of > >> the request > >> http://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/46612/ > >> > >> Do we need some of the previous patches in series as well? > >> > >> This patch is fixing the issue in the current code, do you think we can > >> get this in its current state? > > > > Is this patch still valid? > > > > My understanding is that Chris wants more throughout > revamp of the code so that we have a common ringbuffer init. > And then go further and remove the special reset handling in > execlist case. > > But argument for this patch is that it fixes a bug in current > nightly and it makes the legacy ring init and execlist ring init > identical how they set/reset the ring space. Until we gain > the generic ringbuffer init code. My argument is that we can progress the former with a simple generic patch here that is agnostic of the legacy/execlists duplication. -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
