On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 1:26 AM, Ben Skeggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, 2008-11-07 at 00:43 +0100, Maarten Maathuis wrote: >> My main question is, do the error messages accurately reflect the situation. >> Anything else wrong with this patch? >> >> A (n)ack by darktama would be nice. > An instance value of zero can very well be valid, a definite NACK on > that part of the patch. Also, the PGRAPH interrupt generated on nv5x > while creating the first channel, that *is* a bug, things still work > regardless but painting over it with a "not very harmful" message... > Just, no. > > While I don't see it entirely necessary to split the error message up > when we come across a non-sane channel id, if it bothers you that much > go for it, but the current message gives all the needed info already.. > > Ben. >> >> Maarten. >> _______________________________________________ >> Nouveau mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/nouveau > >
I'll have a deeper look into the strange irq's the blob gets at startup. Maybe i can find the answer there. Maarten. _______________________________________________ Nouveau mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/nouveau
