On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 11:59 AM, Jerome Glisse <j.glisse at gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 11:33 AM, Alex Deucher <alexdeucher at gmail.com> > wrote: >> On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 11:29 AM, Jerome Glisse <j.glisse at gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 11:23 AM, Alex Deucher <alexdeucher at gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>>> On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 10:09 AM, Joerg Roedel <joro at 8bytes.org> wrote: >>>>> On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 02:54:04PM -0400, Jerome Glisse wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> If you want to go the printk way you can add printk before each test >>>>>> ring_test, ib_test in r600.c this 2 functions are the own that might >>>>>> trigger the first GPU gart activities. >>>>> >>>>> Okay, I found the place in source that triggers this. It happens in the >>>>> function r600_ib_test. The interesting thing is that not the ib-command >>>>> itself is responsible but the fence that is emitted afterwards (proved >>>>> by removing the fence command, where the problem went away). >>>>> I don't know enough about the command semantics to make a guess what >>>>> goes wrong there. But maybe you GPU folks have an idea? >>>>> >>>> >>>> I can't think of anything off hand. ?It might be worth disabling the >>>> call to r600_ib_test() in r600_init() and then seeing if you get any >>>> errors when the fences are used later on when X starts or just at that >>>> point in the module load sequence. ?What's odd is that when you tested >>>> radeon.no_wb=1 you got the same behavior as that disables shadowing of >>>> fence writes to gpu gart mem, so it wouldn't be writing to memory in >>>> that case. >>>> >>>> Alex >>>> >>> >>> It might be the irq ring write that is faulty. >> >> That's disabled with no_wb=1 as well. >> >> Alex >> > > I mean the irq interrupt ring, i don't see this being disabled when no_wb=1
I meant the IH ring pointer writeback. The ih ring itself is still in gart memory. Alex > > Cheers, > Jerome >
