From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Chris Wilson Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: Clear any errors recorded before i915.ko is loaded Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2011 07:52:27 +0100 Message-ID: References: <1302040846-18447-1-git-send-email-chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mga09.intel.com (mga09.intel.com [134.134.136.24]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 092B19E74B for ; Tue, 5 Apr 2011 23:52:30 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-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: Keith Packard , intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org On Tue, 05 Apr 2011 18:27:45 -0700, Keith Packard wrote: > On Tue, 5 Apr 2011 23:00:46 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > > This looks like it fixes two bugs: > > > > 1) What if there is an error recorded before we start and so we > > immediately service an IIR/EIR upon intalling the IRQ. Did we generate > > that error during initialisation or was that SEP? Now we do stuff before > > we even install the IRQ so there is a possibility that we zap one of our > > own. > > How will processing a pre-existing error condition cause trouble? So that I can separate out bug reports that are caused by us during initialisation from those that are caused by whatever was running before us. Considering the difficulty in working out what caused a PGTBL_ER during initialisation, any reduction in the volume of noise is a good thing. -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre