Re: [PATCH v5 5/9] drm/i915: Move intel_init_clock_gating() to i915_gem_init()

["Ville Syrjälä" <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>]

On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 07:33:05PM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote:
> Quoting Ville Syrjälä (2017-11-08 19:27:41)
> > On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 07:14:58PM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > > +out_unlock:
> > >       if (ret == -EIO) {
> > >               /* Allow engine initialisation to fail by marking the GPU as
> > >                * wedged. But we only want to do this where the GPU is angry,
> > > @@ -5035,8 +5049,6 @@ int i915_gem_init(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
> > >               }
> > >               ret = 0;
> > >       }
> > > -
> > > -out_unlock:
> > 
> > Is the movement of the label going to adversely affect error handling for
> > the other functions which already use the label? Or none of them can
> > return -EIO?
> 
> None of those can return -EIO, but if they did the same principle
> applies to them. We would much prefer to disable GEM submission than
> disable the driver; the theory being as always if the user can see the
> display and the error messages, they can report a bug. If the driver
> dies in the middle of loading, it's likely they won't be able to see
> anything at all (since we've already kicked out the VGA console and it
> is not coming back).

Ack.

Reviewed-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>

-- 
Ville Syrjälä
Intel OTC
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx