From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ben Widawsky <ben@bwidawsk.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [v3] drm/i915/bdw: Always issue a force
 restore
Date: Wed, 28 May 2014 23:32:59 -0700
Message-ID: <20140529063259.GA788@bwidawsk.net>
References: <+1401318160-3199-1-git-send-email-benjamin.widawsky@intel.com>
 <1401318418-11860-1-git-send-email-benjamin.widawsky@intel.com>
 <20140529055420.GA15957@bwidawsk.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org>
Received: from mail.bwidawsk.net (bwidawsk.net [166.78.191.112])
 by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AF346E96F
 for <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>; Wed, 28 May 2014 23:33:05 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20140529055420.GA15957@bwidawsk.net>
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>
Errors-To: intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org
Sender: "Intel-gfx" <intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org>
To: Ben Widawsky <benjamin.widawsky@intel.com>
Cc: Intel GFX <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>
List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org

On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 10:54:21PM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 04:06:58PM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> > The PDPs seem to get screwed up otherwise, specifically PDP0. I am not
> > really clear why this is required, it just works with full PPGTT.
> > 
> > v2: Only do it for gen8, to limit regression potential
> > 
> > v3: Fix the bugzilla links
> 
> I should note there is a problem with this patch. Without full PPGTT, we
> also do a restore inhibit on the default context, and therefore any test
> which is running and not using contexts (like everything in IGT) is
> programming restore inhibit as well as force restore, which as has been
> pointed out in the semaphore series is weird at best.
> 
> All I know is the patch fixed at least a few of the bugs mentioned
> below. I guess we'll figure out what to do when the QA results come in.
> 
> [snip]
> 

Okay, now I am really confused. I've changed machines and none of these
tests are passing for me now. Until I figured out what happened, please
ignore this thread. Sorry for the noise.


-- 
Ben Widawsky, Intel Open Source Technology Center