Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915/selftests: Filter out both physical address swizzles
Quoting Matthew Auld (2018-07-10 09:46:13) > On 9 July 2018 at 20:49, Chris Wilson wrote: > > In our swizzling selftests, we cannot predict the physical address of > > the target page (at least not simply!) and so skip bit17 swizzles. > > However, there are two bit17 swizzle modes and we only skipped on, with > > we only skipped one > > > the second being observed on the lab gdg causing the test to fail, > > as soon as we hit a page with bit17 set it its address. > > "set it its address"? set in its address > > > > > Testcase: igt/drv_selftest/live_objects #gdg > > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson > Reviewed-by: Matthew Auld Thanks for the proofreading /o\ -Chris ___ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915/selftests: Filter out both physical address swizzles
On 9 July 2018 at 20:49, Chris Wilson wrote: > In our swizzling selftests, we cannot predict the physical address of > the target page (at least not simply!) and so skip bit17 swizzles. > However, there are two bit17 swizzle modes and we only skipped on, with we only skipped one > the second being observed on the lab gdg causing the test to fail, > as soon as we hit a page with bit17 set it its address. "set it its address"? > > Testcase: igt/drv_selftest/live_objects #gdg > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson Reviewed-by: Matthew Auld ___ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
