From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ben Widawsky <ben@bwidawsk.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] drm/i915: catch gtfifo errors on
 forcewake_put
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 18:15:33 -0800
Message-ID: <20120204021533.GA7186@snipes.kumite>
References: <1328308301-28304-1-git-send-email-ben@bwidawsk.net>
	<1328308301-28304-2-git-send-email-ben@bwidawsk.net>
	<e39f63$3iucdj@fmsmga002.fm.intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org>
Received: from cloud01.chad-versace.us (184-106-247-128.static.cloud-ips.com
	[184.106.247.128])
	by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 738269E765
	for <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>;
	Fri,  3 Feb 2012 18:16:04 -0800 (PST)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <e39f63$3iucdj@fmsmga002.fm.intel.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/options/intel-gfx>,
	<mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/intel-gfx>
List-Post: <mailto:intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>
List-Help: <mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx>,
	<mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org
Errors-To: intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org
To: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org

On Fri, Feb 03, 2012 at 11:10:09PM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Fri,  3 Feb 2012 14:31:41 -0800, Ben Widawsky <ben@bwidawsk.net> wrote:
> > This is similar to a patch I wrote several months ago. It's been updated
> > for the new FORCEWAKE_MT, and it also no longer clears the debug
> > register as it may be helpful to get that for the error state.  Also
> > recommended by Chris Wilson, use WARN() instead of DRM_ERROR, so we can
> > get a backtrace.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Ben Widawsky <ben@bwidawsk.net>
> 
> Can we use the read of GTFIFODBG in place of the POSTING_READ? And do we
> really need to watch all the GTFIFODBG reads in the trace, or can I
> squelch that noise with a I915_READ_NOTRACE?
> -Chris

TBH, I don't really understand POSTING_READ that well. If it just
requires that any read request made it through to the MCH (or whatever),
then sure I can replace the POSTING_READ. Obviously though this is
reading GTFIFODBG, and not FORCEWAKE, so you tell me.

As for READ_NOTRACE, I'm all for that. I'll wait to reroll the patch
until you respond to the above though.