From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jesse Barnes Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] drm/i915: enable parity error interrupts Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 10:37:36 -0700 Message-ID: <20120525103736.5ac541c3@jbarnes-desktop> References: <1335573622-10646-1-git-send-email-ben@bwidawsk.net> <1335573622-10646-4-git-send-email-ben@bwidawsk.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from oproxy9.bluehost.com (oproxy9.bluehost.com [69.89.24.6]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 496A09E818 for ; Fri, 25 May 2012 10:37:40 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1335573622-10646-4-git-send-email-ben@bwidawsk.net> 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: Ben Widawsky Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 17:40:19 -0700 Ben Widawsky wrote: > The previous patch put all the code, and handlers in place. It should > now be safe to enable the parity error interrupt. The parity error must > be unmasked in both the GTIMR, and the CS IMR. Unfortunately, the docs > aren't clear about this; nevertheless it's the truth. > > Signed-off-by: Ben Widawsky > --- Can't say I like all the IS_IVB branches, but they're probably ok until we add the next IVB specific feature, then we can fork the functions into IVB specific ones. Reviewed-by: Jesse Barnes -- Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center