On 3/10/2023 5:01 PM, John Harrison wrote:
On 3/3/2023 11:20, Ceraolo Spurio, Daniele wrote:
On 2/17/2023 3:47 PM, john.c.harri...@intel.com wrote:
From: John Harrison
A failure to load the GuC is occasionally observed where the GuC log
actually showed that the GuC had loaded just fine.
On Fri, 10 Mar 2023 17:01:42 -0800, John Harrison wrote:
>
> >> + for (count = 0; count < 20; count++) {
> >> + ret = wait_for(guc_load_done(uncore, , ), 1000);
> >
> > Isn't 20 secs a bit too long for an in-place wait? I get that if the GuC
> > doesn't load (or fail to) within a few
On 3/3/2023 11:20, Ceraolo Spurio, Daniele wrote:
On 2/17/2023 3:47 PM, john.c.harri...@intel.com wrote:
From: John Harrison
A failure to load the GuC is occasionally observed where the GuC log
actually showed that the GuC had loaded just fine. The implication
being that the load just took
On 2/17/2023 3:47 PM, john.c.harri...@intel.com wrote:
From: John Harrison
A failure to load the GuC is occasionally observed where the GuC log
actually showed that the GuC had loaded just fine. The implication
being that the load just took ever so slightly longer than the 200ms
timeout.
