Re: [Intel-gfx] Memory corruption on hibernate/thaw with KMS

2011-10-03 Thread Bojan Smojver
On Tue, 2011-09-27 at 16:12 +1000, Bojan Smojver wrote: This problem is covered by various bugs, one of them being: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=37142 At some point there was a solution to essentially the same bug (I believe http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13811),

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: blitter ring workaround for gen6

2011-10-03 Thread Chris Wilson
On Sun, 2 Oct 2011 18:27:12 -0700, Ben Widawsky b...@bwidawsk.net wrote: Found this through doc inspection. I don't have a failing test case that this fixes, but the docs specify we need to do it in addition to the A0 workaround. Can you try running /usr/lib/xscreenaver/xslip with and without

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: blitter ring workaround for gen6

2011-10-03 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Sun, Oct 02, 2011 at 06:27:12PM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote: Found this through doc inspection. I don't have a failing test case that this fixes, but the docs specify we need to do it in addition to the A0 workaround. Can you confirm that the A0 workaround is really needed in addition to this

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: blitter ring workaround for gen6

2011-10-03 Thread Ben Widawsky
I found this workaround in the docs while trying to debug a certain test case I stumbled upon. The patch is in flux as I try to get it to be useful. Both my test case and xscreensaver slip have similar scenarios which I'm hoping some variation of this patch will fix. Again, this doesn't fix

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: blitter ring workaround for gen6

2011-10-03 Thread Ben Widawsky
On Mon, 3 Oct 2011 09:41:28 +0200 Daniel Vetter dan...@ffwll.ch wrote: On Sun, Oct 02, 2011 at 06:27:12PM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote: Found this through doc inspection. I don't have a failing test case that this fixes, but the docs specify we need to do it in addition to the A0

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: blitter ring workaround for gen6

2011-10-03 Thread Ben Widawsky
I found this workaround in the docs while trying to debug a certain test case I stumbled upon. The patch is in flux as I try to get it to be useful. Both my test case and xscreensaver slip have similar scenarios which I'm hoping some variation of this patch will fix. Again, this doesn't fix

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 3/3] drm/i915: kicking rings considered harmful

2011-10-03 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Sat, Oct 01, 2011 at 11:09:33PM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote: On Sat, 01 Oct 2011 20:59:28 -0700 Eric Anholt e...@anholt.net wrote: On Sat, 1 Oct 2011 19:15:19 -0700, Ben Widawsky b...@bwidawsk.net wrote: From: Daniel Vetter daniel.vet...@ffwll.ch Only do it in the hope of

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 0/3] some hangcheck cleanups

2011-10-03 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Sat, Oct 01, 2011 at 07:15:16PM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote: Do hangchecks for all rings instead of just RCS + cleanup. A bit of extra info on error. Don't kick the rings when doing debugging. Ben Widawsky (2): drm/i915: collect per ring page fault info on error drm/i915: check acthd

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 14/21] drm/i915: Correct eDP panel power sequencing delay computations

2011-10-03 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 21:01, Keith Packard kei...@keithp.com wrote: On Sat, 1 Oct 2011 11:59:09 +0200, Daniel Vetter dan...@ffwll.ch wrote: So while you bang your head against this, can you add the backlight power sequencing delays for lvds panels, too? The lvds panel power sequencing should

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/3] drm/i915: check acthd for all rings

2011-10-03 Thread Ben Widawsky
On Sat, Oct 01, 2011 at 07:15:18PM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote: On Gen6+ we have other rings which may be in use. We haven't hung if the blit or media ring is still going Signed-off-by: Ben Widawsky b...@bwidawsk.net --- drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c |6 +-

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: Use PIPE_CONTROL for flushing on gen6+.

2011-10-03 Thread Jesse Barnes
On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 11:59:23 -0700 Kenneth Graunke kenn...@whitecape.org wrote: + /* Just flush everything for now */ + flags |= PIPE_CONTROL_WC_FLUSH; + flags |= PIPE_CONTROL_IS_FLUSH; + flags |= PIPE_CONTROL_TC_FLUSH; + flags |= PIPE_CONTROL_DEPTH_FLUSH; + flags |=

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: kicking rings considered harmful

2011-10-03 Thread Andrew Lutomirski
I'm up and running again. What's the latest patch I'm supposed to test? i915.semaphores=1 intel_iommu=off appears to work. --Andy ___ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 01/21] drm/i915: Enable digital port hotplug on PCH systems

2011-10-03 Thread Jesse Barnes
On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 18:17:32 +0200 Daniel Vetter dan...@ffwll.ch wrote: On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 06:09:33PM -0700, Keith Packard wrote: We were relying on the BIOS to set these bits, which doesn't always happen. Signed-off-by: Keith Packard kei...@keithp.com Ok, I'll try to increase

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 04/21] drm/i915: Only use VBT panel mode on eDP if no EDID is found

2011-10-03 Thread Jesse Barnes
On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 10:58:26 -0700 Keith Packard kei...@keithp.com wrote: On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 18:32:35 +0200, Daniel Vetter dan...@ffwll.ch wrote: Ok, this is way over my head, just checked whether the patch does what it claims to - nice exercise in reading dp modeset code ;-) Yeah,

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 05/21] drm/i915: Check eDP power when doing aux channel communications

2011-10-03 Thread Jesse Barnes
On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 18:09:37 -0700 Keith Packard kei...@keithp.com wrote: Verify that the eDP VDD is on, either with the panel being on or with the VDD force-on bit being set. This demonstrates that in many instances, VDD is not on when needed, which leads to failed EDID communications.

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: kicking rings considered harmful

2011-10-03 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Mon, Oct 03, 2011 at 01:21:03PM -0700, Andrew Lutomirski wrote: I'm up and running again. What's the latest patch I'm supposed to test? i915.semaphores=1 intel_iommu=off appears to work. Patches are in the works. Thanks a lot for sticking to this and testing all the stuff that didn't

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 16/21] drm/i915: edp_panel_on does not need to return a bool

2011-10-03 Thread Jesse Barnes
On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 18:09:48 -0700 Keith Packard kei...@keithp.com wrote: The return value was unused, so just stop doing that. Signed-off-by: Keith Packard kei...@keithp.com --- drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c |6 ++ 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 10/21] drm/i915: Wrap DP EDID fetch functions to enable eDP panel power

2011-10-03 Thread Jesse Barnes
On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 18:09:42 -0700 Keith Packard kei...@keithp.com wrote: Talking to the eDP DDC channel requires that the panel be powered up. Wrap both the EDID and modes fetch code with calls to turn the vdd power on and back off. These VDD AUX changes look good, ack on all of them. --

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 00/24] MacBook Air patch sequence (v2)

2011-10-03 Thread Jesse Barnes
On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 11:17:38 -0700 Keith Packard kei...@keithp.com wrote: On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 09:20:55 -0400, Ted Ts'o ty...@mit.edu wrote: What kind of battery life do you get with these patches applied, out of curiosity? 4-5 hours when doing the usual web-surfing, etc. Seems pretty

Re: [Intel-gfx] PCH reference clock cleanups

2011-10-03 Thread Jesse Barnes
On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 15:22:48 -0300 Paulo Zanoni przan...@gmail.com wrote: 2011/9/27 Keith Packard kei...@keithp.com: Here's a patch sequence which cleans up a bunch of PCH refclk related bits. For the series: Tested-by: Paulo Zanoni paulo.r.zan...@intel.com Tested all the patches on

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: Use PIPE_CONTROL for flushing on gen6+.

2011-10-03 Thread Keith Packard
On Mon, 3 Oct 2011 13:00:16 -0700, Jesse Barnes jbar...@virtuousgeek.org wrote: This is the only bit I'd like to see changed. While we still have the domain tracking code we may as well try to honor it and limit our flushing here like we do with MI_FLUSH. I'd like to see this patch put in

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: Use PIPE_CONTROL for flushing on gen6+.

2011-10-03 Thread Jesse Barnes
On Mon, 03 Oct 2011 14:14:53 -0700 Keith Packard kei...@keithp.com wrote: On Mon, 3 Oct 2011 13:00:16 -0700, Jesse Barnes jbar...@virtuousgeek.org wrote: This is the only bit I'd like to see changed. While we still have the domain tracking code we may as well try to honor it and limit

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/2] drm: Add Panel Self Refresh DP addresses

2011-10-03 Thread Keith Packard
On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 15:29:47 -0700, Ben Widawsky b...@bwidawsk.net wrote: Add the addresses and definitions I care about for Panel Self Refresh, as documented in the eDP spec. I generally review the addresses and bit definitions for any new registers -- getting them wrong makes debugging the

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: Use PIPE_CONTROL for flushing on gen6+.

2011-10-03 Thread Eric Anholt
On Mon, 3 Oct 2011 13:00:16 -0700, Jesse Barnes jbar...@virtuousgeek.org wrote: On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 11:59:23 -0700 Kenneth Graunke kenn...@whitecape.org wrote: + /* Just flush everything for now */ + flags |= PIPE_CONTROL_WC_FLUSH; + flags |= PIPE_CONTROL_IS_FLUSH; + flags |=

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/2] drm: Add Panel Self Refresh DP addresses

2011-10-03 Thread Ben Widawsky
On Mon, Oct 03, 2011 at 02:25:39PM -0700, Keith Packard wrote: On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 15:29:47 -0700, Ben Widawsky b...@bwidawsk.net wrote: Add the addresses and definitions I care about for Panel Self Refresh, as documented in the eDP spec. I generally review the addresses and bit

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: Use PIPE_CONTROL for flushing on gen6+.

2011-10-03 Thread Jesse Barnes
On Mon, 03 Oct 2011 15:59:29 -0700 Eric Anholt e...@anholt.net wrote: On Mon, 3 Oct 2011 13:00:16 -0700, Jesse Barnes jbar...@virtuousgeek.org wrote: On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 11:59:23 -0700 Kenneth Graunke kenn...@whitecape.org wrote: + /* Just flush everything for now */ + flags |=

Re: [Intel-gfx] PCH reference clock cleanups

2011-10-03 Thread Keith Packard
On Mon, 3 Oct 2011 14:14:23 -0700, Jesse Barnes jbar...@virtuousgeek.org wrote: Now... is keeping the various refclks enabled costing us any power? IOW, should we be trying to disable them when everything has been DPMS'd off too? That's the same as tracking usage and enabling/disabling on

Re: [Intel-gfx] PCH reference clock cleanups

2011-10-03 Thread Jesse Barnes
On Mon, 03 Oct 2011 16:18:48 -0700 Keith Packard kei...@keithp.com wrote: On Mon, 3 Oct 2011 14:14:23 -0700, Jesse Barnes jbar...@virtuousgeek.org wrote: Now... is keeping the various refclks enabled costing us any power? IOW, should we be trying to disable them when everything has been

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/2] drm: Add Panel Self Refresh DP addresses

2011-10-03 Thread Keith Packard
On Mon, 3 Oct 2011 15:14:14 -0700, Ben Widawsky b...@bwidawsk.net wrote: +# define DP_PSR_SUPPORTED 1 That's PSR version 1, not just a simple boolean +# define DP_PSR_SETUP_TIME_330 (0 1) +# define DP_PSR_SETUP_TIME_275 (1 1) +# define

Re: [Intel-gfx] PCH reference clock cleanups

2011-10-03 Thread Keith Packard
On Mon, 3 Oct 2011 16:21:08 -0700, Jesse Barnes jbar...@virtuousgeek.org wrote: Agreed; fortunately shutting everything off when no outputs are active should be simpler than trying flip the bits on off every mode set. :) We'd have to track when outputs are shut off; just tracking per clock

Re: [Intel-gfx] Memory corruption on hibernate/thaw with KMS

2011-10-03 Thread Eugeni Dodonov
On Oct 3, 2011 3:44 AM, Bojan Smojver bo...@rexursive.com wrote: On Tue, 2011-09-27 at 16:12 +1000, Bojan Smojver wrote: This problem is covered by various bugs, one of them being: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=37142 At some point there was a solution to essentially the

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/2] drm: Add Panel Self Refresh DP addresses

2011-10-03 Thread Ben Widawsky
On Mon, Oct 03, 2011 at 04:31:22PM -0700, Keith Packard wrote: On Mon, 3 Oct 2011 15:14:14 -0700, Ben Widawsky b...@bwidawsk.net wrote: +# define DP_PSR_SUPPORTED 1 That's PSR version 1, not just a simple boolean Ok. +# define DP_PSR_SETUP_TIME_330 (0

Re: [Intel-gfx] Memory corruption on hibernate/thaw with KMS

2011-10-03 Thread Bojan Smojver
On Mon, 2011-10-03 at 23:32 -0300, Eugeni Dodonov wrote: I was investigating the issue for a couple of weeks, but I was unable to reproduce it on any of my machines. Does it only happens only on this thinkpad, or you can reproduce it consistently on other machines as well? My other machines

Re: [Intel-gfx] Memory corruption on hibernate/thaw with KMS

2011-10-03 Thread Bojan Smojver
On Tue, 2011-10-04 at 13:46 +1100, Bojan Smojver wrote: So, yeah, for all intents and purposes, I can only reproduce it on this system. If it matters, before I switched to ThinkPad T510, I had a Dell Inspiron 6400, also with Intel graphics. I was then hitting:

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/3] i915: Remove implied length of 2 from GFX_OP_PIPE_CONTROL #define.

2011-10-03 Thread Kenneth Graunke
Not all PIPE_CONTROLs have a length of 2, so remove it from the #define and make each invocation specify the desired length. Signed-off-by: Kenneth Graunke kenn...@whitecape.org --- drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h |2 +- drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.c |4 ++-- 2 files

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/3] i915: Rename PIPE_CONTROL bit defines to be less terse.

2011-10-03 Thread Kenneth Graunke
STALL_AT_SCOREBOARD is much clearer than STALL_EN now that there are several different kinds of stalls. Also, INSTRUCTION_CACHE_FLUSH is a lot easier to understand at a glance than the terse IS_FLUSH. Signed-off-by: Kenneth Graunke kenn...@whitecape.org --- drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 3/3] drm/i915: Use PIPE_CONTROL for flushing on gen6+.

2011-10-03 Thread Kenneth Graunke
From: Jesse Barnes jbar...@virtuousgeek.org Signed-off-by: Jesse Barnes jbar...@virtuousgeek.org Signed-off-by: Kenneth Graunke kenn...@whitecape.org --- drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h |5 + drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.c | 136 --- 2 files