On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 17:04:27 +0200, Daniel Vetter <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 4:57 PM, Chris Wilson <[email protected]> > wrote: > > On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 16:42:05 +0200, Daniel Vetter <[email protected]> > > wrote: > >> I've added a bit of logic such that running the hangman test on chips > >> without any hw reset support at all doesn't wedge the gpu because the > >> reset failed. This relied on checking for non-null stop_rings. > >> Unfortunately I've botched a rebase somewhere and stop_rings is still > >> cleared at the old place before the reset code. > >> > >> Fix this up so that running the i-g-t tests on gen2/3 doesn't result > >> in a wedged gpu. > > > > dev_priv->stop_rings = 0; is there on both dif and dinq. An unpushed > > mistake perhaps? > > Well, the hangman got merged for 3.5 and has been broken since then. > Yeah, shame on me for not noticing earlier :( > > This came about that stop_rings = 0 as removed by this patch was the > earlier place if reset it. But to not wedge the gpu I need to still > know whether this is a simulated gpu hang after the reset code ran and > failed with -ENODEV (indicating the missing reset code). The right > code is in intel_gpu_reset. I've tested before submitting the patches, > but somehow managed to slip in the old hunk somehow in a last-minute > rebase. > > This patch just kills this spurious hunk.
...but this patches adds the existing line... * confused. -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
