Quoting Rodrigo Vivi (2017-11-17 17:33:49) > On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 11:11:28AM +0000, Jani Nikula wrote: > > On Fri, 17 Nov 2017, Chris Wilson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Rodrigo gave a persuasive argument for keeping workarounds: that they > > > serve as a good guide for the bring up of the next generation. Not only > > > do workarounds persist into the early revisions, they show where the > > > workarounds were previously added to the code flow and sometimes the old > > > workarounds have an explanation that give insight into their wider > > > implications. > > Thanks! :) > > > > > > > Based on his suggestion, document the policy that we want to keep the > > > workarounds from the current generation to guide the next. Older > > > preproduction workarounds we still want to remove to keep the code > > > clean. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <[email protected]> > > > Cc: Jani Nikula <[email protected]> > > > Cc: Rodrigo Vivi <[email protected]> > > > Cc: Daniel Vetter <[email protected]> > > > > Acked-by: Jani Nikula <[email protected]> > > > > > --- > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c | 5 +++++ > > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c > > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c > > > index 57dfaf04d819..fbfa9434c1d1 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c > > > @@ -833,6 +833,11 @@ static void i915_workqueues_cleanup(struct > > > drm_i915_private *dev_priv) > > > * We don't keep the workarounds for pre-production hardware, so we > > > expect our > > > * driver to fail on these machines in one way or another. A little > > > warning on > > > * dmesg may help both the user and the bug triagers. > > > + * > > > + * Our policy for removing pre-production workarounds is to keep the > > > + * current gen workarounds as a guide to the bring-up of the next gen > > > + * (workarounds have a habit of persisting!). Anything older than that > > > + * should be removed along with the complications they introduce. > > > */ > > Maybe it would be good to mention that they should be at least protected > by the REVID checks if they stay around.
Not quite sure how we want to word that. Basically it amounts to that when we have production units and completed alpha-supported, then sometime later we want to start tainting the pre-production sdp. Or maybe it should be simply on completion of alpha-support those pre-production sdp are tainted. > But with or without this change: > > Reviewed-by: Rodrigo Vivi <[email protected]> Taken the simple comment, suggestions welcome. -Chris _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list [email protected] https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
