Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915/cnl: Avoid WA_SET_BIT_MASK on write-only CNL_HDC_CHICKEN0.

2017-09-27 Thread Oscar Mateo
On 09/27/2017 02:17 PM, Rodrigo Vivi wrote: On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 09:08:10PM +, Oscar Mateo wrote: On 09/27/2017 02:01 PM, Rodrigo Vivi wrote: On CNL, HDC_CHICKEN0 "is write-only from LRI command. However, it is readable for context save." So we have no ways to check the coherency by

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915/cnl: Avoid WA_SET_BIT_MASK on write-only CNL_HDC_CHICKEN0.

2017-09-27 Thread Rodrigo Vivi
On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 09:08:10PM +, Oscar Mateo wrote: > > > On 09/27/2017 02:01 PM, Rodrigo Vivi wrote: > > On CNL, HDC_CHICKEN0 "is write-only from LRI command. > > However, it is readable for context save." > > > > So we have no ways to check the coherency by reading it back on > > our

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915/cnl: Avoid WA_SET_BIT_MASK on write-only CNL_HDC_CHICKEN0.

2017-09-27 Thread Oscar Mateo
On 09/27/2017 02:01 PM, Rodrigo Vivi wrote: On CNL, HDC_CHICKEN0 "is write-only from LRI command. However, it is readable for context save." So we have no ways to check the coherency by reading it back on our tests. So let's just write that bit directly without saving it to

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915/cnl: Avoid WA_SET_BIT_MASK on write-only CNL_HDC_CHICKEN0.

2017-09-27 Thread Rodrigo Vivi
On CNL, HDC_CHICKEN0 "is write-only from LRI command. However, it is readable for context save." So we have no ways to check the coherency by reading it back on our tests. So let's just write that bit directly without saving it to dev_priv->workarounds. Bugzilla: