Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: fix crash in error state readout on non-execlist platforms v2

2015-09-23 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 10:03:01AM -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote: > Looks like this was introduced in: > commit d1675198ed1f21aec6e036336e4340c40b726497 > Author: Alex Dai > Date: Wed Aug 12 15:43:43 2015 +0100 > > drm/i915: Integrate GuC-based command submission > > This

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: fix crash in error state readout on non-execlist platforms v2

2015-09-15 Thread Jesse Barnes
Looks like this was introduced in: commit d1675198ed1f21aec6e036336e4340c40b726497 Author: Alex Dai Date: Wed Aug 12 15:43:43 2015 +0100 drm/i915: Integrate GuC-based command submission This patch assumed LRC contexts and HWS layout, which is incorrect on platforms

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: fix crash in error state readout on non-execlist platforms

2015-09-14 Thread Dave Gordon
On 14/09/15 10:21, Daniel Vetter wrote: On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 03:07:00PM -0700, Yu Dai wrote: Agree. The LRC prefix is confusing. Thanks for the patch. -Alex Care to do an official r-b? Thanks, Daniel On 09/10/2015 02:58 PM, Jesse Barnes wrote: That looks like it would, but I think

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: fix crash in error state readout on non-execlist platforms

2015-09-14 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 03:07:00PM -0700, Yu Dai wrote: > Agree. The LRC prefix is confusing. Thanks for the patch. -Alex Care to do an official r-b? Thanks, Daniel > > On 09/10/2015 02:58 PM, Jesse Barnes wrote: > >That looks like it would, but I think it's still confusing to reference LRC >

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: fix crash in error state readout on non-execlist platforms

2015-09-10 Thread Jesse Barnes
Looks like this was introduced in: commit d1675198ed1f21aec6e036336e4340c40b726497 Author: Alex Dai Date: Wed Aug 12 15:43:43 2015 +0100 drm/i915: Integrate GuC-based command submission This patch assumed LRC contexts and HWS layout, which is incorrect on platforms

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: fix crash in error state readout on non-execlist platforms

2015-09-10 Thread Jesse Barnes
That looks like it would, but I think it's still confusing to reference LRC state when we haven't initialized execlists at all... Jesse On 09/10/2015 02:56 PM, Yu Dai wrote: > Jesse, > > Will the patch here fix the issue? It should help other cases where > LRC_PPHWSP_PN is referenced on

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: fix crash in error state readout on non-execlist platforms

2015-09-10 Thread Yu Dai
Jesse, Will the patch here fix the issue? It should help other cases where LRC_PPHWSP_PN is referenced on non-execlist / guc platforms. diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.h index 4cc54b3..233a930 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.h +++

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: fix crash in error state readout on non-execlist platforms

2015-09-10 Thread Yu Dai
Agree. The LRC prefix is confusing. Thanks for the patch. -Alex On 09/10/2015 02:58 PM, Jesse Barnes wrote: That looks like it would, but I think it's still confusing to reference LRC state when we haven't initialized execlists at all... Jesse On 09/10/2015 02:56 PM, Yu Dai wrote: > Jesse, >