Em Seg, 2016-06-13 às 13:47 +0200, Stefan Richter escreveu: > On Jun 10 Paulo Zanoni wrote: > > > > Since my test machines don't produce FIFO underrun errors, I tested > > this by > > creating a debugfs file that just calls > > intel_fbc_handle_fifo_underrun(). I'd > > appreciate some Tested-by tags, if possible. > Since May 8 I have been using 4.6.0-rc6 patched with > drm-intel-nightly_2016y-05m-06d-14h-29m-58s (from what I understand, > something close to what is now in mainline), and fbc disabled on the > kernel commandline. I have not rebooted since May 8. Ok, so you're saying that if you boot this Kernel with i915.fbc=1, you won't get any FIFO underrun messages, but the system is still going to freeze somehow? If that's the case, then this patch won't help. > > For that kernel, i915.enable_fbc=0 is both required and sufficient to > prevent freezes at random points in time (as reported). The > drm-intel-nightly_2016y-05m-06d-14h-29m-58s patch on the other hand > has the > effect that there are never any FIFO underruns logged anymore. > > If there are no FIFO underruns reported in dmesg, your underrun > detection routine would never hit, would it? You're right, there's no need to test on this case. > > If you nevertheless think it's worth trying, should I test it on top > of > 4.7-rc3 or on current drm-intel-nightly? _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
