On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 10:46:29AM +0200, Joonas Lahtinen wrote: > Quoting Bjorn Helgaas (2020-12-02 22:22:53) > > On Wed, Dec 02, 2020 at 05:21:58AM +0000, Surendrakumar Upadhyay, > > TejaskumarX wrote: > > > Yes it fails all the tests which are allocating from this stolen > > > memory bunch. For example IGT tests like " > > > igt@kms_frontbuffer_tracking@-[fbc|fbcpsr].* | > > > igt@kms_fbcon_fbt@fbc.* " are failing as they totally depend to work > > > on stolen memory. > > That's just because we have de-duped the stolen memory detection code. > If it's not detected at the early quirks, it's not detected by the > driver at all. > > So if the patch is not merged to early quirks, we'd have to refactor the > code to add alternative detection path to i915. Before that is done, the > failures are expected. > > > I'm sure that means something to graphics developers, but I have no > > idea! Do you have URLs for the test case source, outputs, dmesg log, > > lspci info, bug reports, etc? > > The thing is, the bug reports for stuff like this would only start to > flow after Jasperlake systems are shipping widely and the less common > OEMs start integrating it to into strangely behaving BIOSes. Or that > is the assumption. > > If it's fine to merge this through i915 for now with an Acked-by, like > the previous patches, that'd be great. We can start a discussion on if > the new platforms are affected anymore. But I'd rather not drop it > before we have that understanding, as the previous problems have > included boot time memory corruption. > > Would that work?
Like I said, I'm not objecting if somebody else wants to apply this. I'm just pointing out that there's a little bit of voodoo here because it's not clear what makes a BIOS strangely behaving or what causes boot-time memory corruption, and that means we don't really have any hope of resolving this stream of quirk updates. Bjorn
