Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] Revert "drm/i915: Implement Wa_1607090982"

On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 09:06:11AM +, Chris Wilson wrote: > BIT(14) is not sticking in 0xe4f4 so we have no idea if the w/a is still > in effect when it needs to be. Until that is resolved, remove the > failing bit. The headline for the patch you're reverting was somewhat confusing since it

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] Revert "drm/i915: Implement Wa_1607090982"

Chris Wilson writes: > BIT(14) is not sticking in 0xe4f4 so we have no idea if the w/a is still Now we have some idea. It was in mcr range register thus verification was doomed to fail. Fix in list. -Mika > in effect when it needs to be. Until that is resolved, remove the > failing bit. > >

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] Revert "drm/i915: Implement Wa_1607090982"

Chris Wilson writes: > BIT(14) is not sticking in 0xe4f4 so we have no idea if the w/a is still > in effect when it needs to be. Until that is resolved, remove the > failing bit. > > Closes: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/intel/issues/1169 > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson > Cc: Mika Kuoppala

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH] Revert "drm/i915: Implement Wa_1607090982"

BIT(14) is not sticking in 0xe4f4 so we have no idea if the w/a is still in effect when it needs to be. Until that is resolved, remove the failing bit. Closes: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/intel/issues/1169 Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson Cc: Mika Kuoppala ---