Re: Linux-2.6.27-rc5, drm errors in log

Gene Heskett
2008-08-31T11:57:28Z

On Sunday 31 August 2008, Gene Heskett wrote:
>On Sunday 31 August 2008, Dave Airlie wrote:
>>On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 12:19 PM, Gene Heskett <gene.heskett@verizon.net>
wrote:
>>> On Saturday 30 August 2008, Bridgman, John wrote:
>>>>))I'm drowning in these errors:
>>>>))
>>>>))Aug 30 13:21:05 coyote kernel: [14927.850078] [drm] wait for fifo
>>>> failed status : 0x80076100 0x00000000
>>>>
>>>>I'm just going on the code in your email - can't view git until later
>>>> today - but in this case it seems like the timeouts were always
>>>> happening and now there is code to print an error message.
>>>>
>>>>IIRC the usual fix is to bump the timeout but (Michael ?) has suggested a
>>>> couple of times that the ideal solution would be to change the logic so
>>>> that the driver never times out while the chip is making progress (ie
>>>> while the number of slots available in the fifo is increasing, even if
>>>> it hasn't increased enough yet).
>>>
>>> FWIW, I added the 3 lines that cause that printout to the 2.6.27-rc4 tree
>>> and rebuilt it. There are no more errors being reported now by
>>> 2.6.27-rc4, and there were none without those 3 added lines prior to
>>> this, so it is rc5 specific.
>>
>>Hmm I'm just looking at the patches I put in for rc5, and there is no
>>functional difference to the
>>r200 codepath that I can see from those patches apart from the debug
>> prints.
>
>Update: there were 3 of those in the log after I sent the denial msg.
>======
>Aug 30 23:48:34 coyote kernel: [ 7242.890000] [drm] wait for fifo failed
> status : 0x80076100 0x00000000 Aug 30 23:57:51 coyote kernel: [
> 7800.370001] [drm] wait for fifo failed status : 0x8003C100 0x00000000 Aug
> 30 23:57:51 coyote kernel: [ 7800.458000] [drm] wait for fifo failed status
> : 0x8007C100 0x00000000 ======
>So this is a real, pre-rc5 problem, but without the reporting that enabled.
>
>>Can you get a clean -rc4 and apply just
>> 54f961a628b737f66710eca0b0d95346645dd33e to it.
>
>Yes I can, but how do I get that specific patch? Or is that the git # for
> the patch I first applied to -rc2, which added the firmware/radeon stuff?
> I'm familiar with patch, but not on a first name basis with git, sorry.
>
>So I'm going to do a bisect, my style. I will rebuild, starting with -rc3,
>using only the -rcX patch and the firmware addition patch, which applied to
>-rc3 as follows:
>now applying [PATCH]radeon_cp-use-request_firmware
>
>patching file drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_cp.c
>patching file drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_drv.h
>patching file drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_microcode.h
>patching file firmware/Makefile
>Hunk #1 FAILED at 34.
>1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file firmware/Makefile.rej
>===So I added that into the firmware/Makefile at line 28 by hand===
>patching file firmware/WHENCE
>Hunk #1 succeeded at 339 (offset -233 lines).
>patching file firmware/radeon/R100_cp.bin.ihex
>patching file firmware/radeon/R200_cp.bin.ihex
>patching file firmware/radeon/R300_cp.bin.ihex
>patching file firmware/radeon/R420_cp.bin.ihex
>patching file firmware/radeon/R520_cp.bin.ihex
>patching file firmware/radeon/RS600_cp.bin.ihex
>patching file firmware/radeon/RS690_cp.bin.ihex
>
>patch [PATCH]radeon_cp-use-request_firmware done
>
>=== and I'm watching the build for errors===
>It got past the MK_FW for those ok.
>However there were 6 section miss-matches reported, and the suggested
>addition to .config did not make it any noisier so I'm no smarter.
>Now I've added those 3 reporter lines to radeon_cp.c, rebuilt again and
>will reboot to -rc3 for effects, reporting after a few hours uptime.
>
>Unless you have a better plan I can learn of course.
>
Yeah I know, its bad form replying to one own messages, but 2.6.27-rc3 is
doing it too. So next I add the reporter to -rc1, without the firmware patch
as its a sure bet -rc2 will do it too. And will report back in a few hours.

Thanks Dave.

--
Cheers, Gene
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1759