On Thu, 14 Feb 2013 18:26:59 -0200
Paulo Zanoni <przan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi
>
> 2013/2/9 Ben Widawsky <b...@bwidawsk.net>:
> > On Fri, 8 Feb 2013 17:35:14 -0200
> > Paulo Zanoni <przan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> From: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zan...@intel.com>
> >>
> >> Otherwise, if the BIOS did anything wrong, our first
> >> I915_{WRITE,READ} will give us "unclaimed register" messages.
> >>
> >> V2: Even earlier.
> >>
> >> Bugzilla: http://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=58897
> >> Signed-off-by: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zan...@intel.com>
> >
> > I really wish we were allowed to call Haswell something like
> > gen7.x, so we can do INTEL_INFO(dev)->gen > 7
>
> Like gen 70 and 75?
Yeah, but that's not your problem or fault.
>
> >
> > Also, I would have cleared all the bits in the register, not just
> > NOCLAIM.
>
> I'm not so sure, the other bits have completely different purposes,
> unrelated with the "unclaimed registers". I don't think it's a good
> idea to zero bits that have nothing to do with the purpose of the
> code.
I think doing that is a separate patch, and it goes along with the
"we don't care what errors BIOS induced" philosophy IMO.
>
> >
> > Either way it's
> > Reviewed-by: Ben Widawsky <b...@bwidawsk.net>
>
> Thanks for the review :)
>
> > [snip]
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
