On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 05:29:33PM +0200, Terje Bergström wrote: > On 14.11.2012 17:01, Thierry Reding wrote: > > Funny. I just tested with this line removed and I also get the freeze. > > With the line I don't get the freeze. Does the freeze only occur with > > additional patches on top? If so I think we should keep the line in for > > now because it is what most people have tested against and which has > > proven to work. We can fix any remaining issues with host1x specific > > things when actual patches emerge. > > I was running with 2D acceleration support added on top of your > gitorious tree. It was the nvhost driver, which probes host1x, and > initializes it. In middle of initialization (writing zeros to sync point > registers), host1x stops responding. > > I agree, if removing the line causes regression, keep it and let's debug > this issue later. > > It might be that we have a difference in bootloader. Does your > bootloader enable display? U-Boot and fastboot do, and it might be that > has an effect. They would need to initialize host1x clocks, and it might > be that kernel initialization somehow clashes with bootloader's. I use an upstream U-Boot version that performs no display initialization on the board that I use. Perhaps that indeed causes your setup to work properly but not mine. Thierry
Attachment:
pgppIHhr9RNMr.pgp
Description: PGP signature
