On 12/10/2013 01:12 PM, Alex Deucher wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 10:04 AM, Alex Deucher
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 9:20 PM, Michel D?nzer wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2013-12-09 at 19:48 -0500, Alex Deucher wrote:
-u32 cik_compute_ring_get_wptr(struct radeon_device *rdev,
-
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 3:54 PM, Kleber Sacilotto de Souza
wrote:
> On 12/10/2013 01:12 PM, Alex Deucher wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 10:04 AM, Alex Deucher
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 9:20 PM, Michel D?nzer wrote:
On Mon, 2013-12-09 at 19:48 -0500, Alex Deucher
On Mon, 2013-12-09 at 19:48 -0500, Alex Deucher wrote:
>
> -u32 cik_compute_ring_get_wptr(struct radeon_device *rdev,
> - struct radeon_ring *ring)
> +u32 cik_compute_get_wptr(struct radeon_device *rdev,
> +struct radeon_ring *ring)
> {
>
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 10:04 AM, Alex Deucher wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 9:20 PM, Michel D?nzer wrote:
>> On Mon, 2013-12-09 at 19:48 -0500, Alex Deucher wrote:
>>>
>>> -u32 cik_compute_ring_get_wptr(struct radeon_device *rdev,
>>> - struct radeon_ring *ring)
On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 9:20 PM, Michel D?nzer wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-12-09 at 19:48 -0500, Alex Deucher wrote:
>>
>> -u32 cik_compute_ring_get_wptr(struct radeon_device *rdev,
>> - struct radeon_ring *ring)
>> +u32 cik_compute_get_wptr(struct radeon_device *rdev,
>> +
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 10:59 AM, Alex Deucher wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 8:58 AM, Kleber Sacilotto de Souza
> wrote:
>> On 12/05/2013 12:42 PM, Alex Deucher wrote:
>>>
>>> Well, we'd need to start swapping indirect buffers and the ring as
>>> well then which would get tricky as the CP at
On 12/05/2013 12:42 PM, Alex Deucher wrote:
> Well, we'd need to start swapping indirect buffers and the ring as
> well then which would get tricky as the CP at least does not have
> separate swapping controls for different things. Probably easier to
> fix up as appropriate for different asic
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 8:58 AM, Kleber Sacilotto de Souza
wrote:
> On 12/05/2013 12:42 PM, Alex Deucher wrote:
>>
>> Well, we'd need to start swapping indirect buffers and the ring as
>> well then which would get tricky as the CP at least does not have
>> separate swapping controls for different
On Thu, 2013-12-05 at 11:29 +0900, Michel D?nzer wrote:
> On Don, 2013-12-05 at 12:39 +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > On Wed, 2013-12-04 at 19:05 -0500, Alex Deucher wrote:
> >
> > > > Setting CP_RB_CNTL.BUF_SWAP causes the CP to use the selected byte
> > > > swapping for just about
On Wed, 2013-12-04 at 19:05 -0500, Alex Deucher wrote:
> > Setting CP_RB_CNTL.BUF_SWAP causes the CP to use the selected byte
> > swapping for just about everything accessed by the CP (rptr writeback,
> > indirect buffers, etc.). Looks like the DMA ring supports and enables
> > rptr writeback as
On Don, 2013-12-05 at 12:39 +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-12-04 at 19:05 -0500, Alex Deucher wrote:
>
> > > Setting CP_RB_CNTL.BUF_SWAP causes the CP to use the selected byte
> > > swapping for just about everything accessed by the CP (rptr writeback,
> > > indirect buffers,
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 11:06 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt
wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-12-05 at 11:29 +0900, Michel D?nzer wrote:
>> On Don, 2013-12-05 at 12:39 +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>> > On Wed, 2013-12-04 at 19:05 -0500, Alex Deucher wrote:
>> >
>> > > > Setting CP_RB_CNTL.BUF_SWAP causes
On 11/25/2013 10:11 PM, Kleber Sacilotto de Souza wrote:
> On 11/24/2013 09:15 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>> On Fri, 2013-11-08 at 11:43 -0200, Kleber Sacilotto de Souza wrote:
>>> On 11/07/2013 08:29 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Mon, 2013-06-17 at 18:57 -0400, Alex Deucher
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 6:56 PM, Alex Deucher wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 5:16 PM, Kleber Sacilotto de Souza
> wrote:
>> On 11/25/2013 10:11 PM, Kleber Sacilotto de Souza wrote:
>>>
>>> On 11/24/2013 09:15 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Fri, 2013-11-08 at 11:43 -0200, Kleber
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 5:16 PM, Kleber Sacilotto de Souza
wrote:
> On 11/25/2013 10:11 PM, Kleber Sacilotto de Souza wrote:
>>
>> On 11/24/2013 09:15 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, 2013-11-08 at 11:43 -0200, Kleber Sacilotto de Souza wrote:
On 11/07/2013 08:29 PM,
On 11/24/2013 09:15 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-11-08 at 11:43 -0200, Kleber Sacilotto de Souza wrote:
>> On 11/07/2013 08:29 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2013-06-17 at 18:57 -0400, Alex Deucher wrote:
>>>
Weird. I wonder if there is an issue with cache
On Fri, 2013-11-08 at 11:43 -0200, Kleber Sacilotto de Souza wrote:
> On 11/07/2013 08:29 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > On Mon, 2013-06-17 at 18:57 -0400, Alex Deucher wrote:
> >
> >> Weird. I wonder if there is an issue with cache snoops on PPC. We
> >> currently use the gart in cached
On 11/07/2013 08:29 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-06-17 at 18:57 -0400, Alex Deucher wrote:
>
>> Weird. I wonder if there is an issue with cache snoops on PPC. We
>> currently use the gart in cached mode (GPU snoops CPU cache) with
>> cached pages. I wonder if we need to use
On Mon, 2013-06-17 at 18:57 -0400, Alex Deucher wrote:
> Weird. I wonder if there is an issue with cache snoops on PPC. We
> currently use the gart in cached mode (GPU snoops CPU cache) with
> cached pages. I wonder if we need to use uncached pages on PPC.
There is no such issue and no known
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 12:07 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-06-17 at 11:04 -0400, Alex Deucher wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 10:06 AM, Adam Jackson wrote:
>> > At least on an IBM Power 720, this check passes, but several piglit
>> > tests will reliably trigger GPU resets due to the
On Mon, 2013-06-17 at 11:04 -0400, Alex Deucher wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 10:06 AM, Adam Jackson wrote:
> > At least on an IBM Power 720, this check passes, but several piglit
> > tests will reliably trigger GPU resets due to the ring buffer pointers
> > not being updated. There's
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 10:06 AM, Adam Jackson wrote:
> At least on an IBM Power 720, this check passes, but several piglit
> tests will reliably trigger GPU resets due to the ring buffer pointers
> not being updated. There's probably a better way to limit this to just
> affected machines
At least on an IBM Power 720, this check passes, but several piglit
tests will reliably trigger GPU resets due to the ring buffer pointers
not being updated. There's probably a better way to limit this to just
affected machines though.
Signed-off-by: Adam Jackson
---
At least on an IBM Power 720, this check passes, but several piglit
tests will reliably trigger GPU resets due to the ring buffer pointers
not being updated. There's probably a better way to limit this to just
affected machines though.
Signed-off-by: Adam Jackson a...@redhat.com
---
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 10:06 AM, Adam Jackson a...@redhat.com wrote:
At least on an IBM Power 720, this check passes, but several piglit
tests will reliably trigger GPU resets due to the ring buffer pointers
not being updated. There's probably a better way to limit this to just
affected
On Mon, 2013-06-17 at 11:04 -0400, Alex Deucher wrote:
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 10:06 AM, Adam Jackson a...@redhat.com wrote:
At least on an IBM Power 720, this check passes, but several piglit
tests will reliably trigger GPU resets due to the ring buffer pointers
not being updated. There's
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 12:07 PM, Adam Jackson a...@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, 2013-06-17 at 11:04 -0400, Alex Deucher wrote:
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 10:06 AM, Adam Jackson a...@redhat.com wrote:
At least on an IBM Power 720, this check passes, but several piglit
tests will reliably trigger
27 matches
Mail list logo
