On 03/06/16 17:08, Chris Wilson wrote:
Since the tests can and do explicitly check debugfs/i915_ring_missed_irqs
for the handling of a "missed interrupt", adding it to the dmesg at INFO
is just noise. When it happens for real, we still class it as an ERROR.
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c | 3 ---
1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c
index 5bdb433dde8c..f74f5727ea77 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c
@@ -3071,9 +3071,6 @@ static unsigned kick_waiters(struct intel_engine_cs *engine)
if (!test_bit(engine->id, &i915->gpu_error.test_irq_rings))
DRM_ERROR("Hangcheck timer elapsed... %s idle\n",
engine->name);
- else
- DRM_INFO("Fake missed irq on %s\n",
- engine->name);
intel_engine_enable_fake_irq(engine);
}
Makes sense, or could be at debug level. Either way:
Reviewed-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx>
Regards,
Tvrtko
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
