Quoting Ville Syrjälä (2018-02-07 14:44:39)
> On Wed, Feb 07, 2018 at 04:41:43PM +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 07, 2018 at 10:08:45AM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > > After we assert the reset request (and wait for 20us), when the device
> > > has been fully reset it asserts the reset-status bit. Before we stop
> > > requesting the reset and allow the device to return to normal, we should
> > > wait for the reset to be completed. (Similar to how we wait for the
> > > device to return to normal after deasserting the reset request.)
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk>
> > > Cc: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrj...@linux.intel.com>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.c | 12 ++++++++++--
> > >  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.c 
> > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.c
> > > index 612aad205b59..dd86428774da 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.c
> > > @@ -1555,19 +1555,27 @@ static bool i915_reset_complete(struct pci_dev 
> > > *pdev)
> > >     u8 gdrst;
> > >  
> > >     pci_read_config_byte(pdev, I915_GDRST, &gdrst);
> > > -   return (gdrst & GRDOM_RESET_STATUS) == 0;
> > > +   return gdrst & GRDOM_RESET_STATUS;
> 
> Doh. Failed to notice this change. The function name is perhaps a bit
> confusing now since it doesn't match the meaning of the g4x version.
> Maybe rename this guy? i915_gpu_in_reset() or something?

Fwiw,

<3>[  291.416895] wait-for-asserted took 3705ns
<3>[  291.417570] wait-for-unasserted took 3334ns

So it seems like the usleep()s were doing their job.
-Chris
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

Reply via email to