On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 05:36:52PM -0700, Vivi, Rodrigo wrote:
> You mean you prefer the the loop with for (i = 0; i < hweight(ring_mask);
> i++) {
> instead? I thought you were ok with either and I preferred this one just to
> be on the safest side and let userspace parse it properly.
I can live with either. I guess it's a little more obvious if we only
capture the relevant data on platforms that have actual registers. gen8
is special IMO here because we're writing to memory. But either way this
is an improvement.
>
> Or do you prefer that other version with double loop but with names of rings?
I think it would be cool if we could have it as such, but I am not sure
what others think:
SYNC[RCS->VCS]: 0x%08x
But whatever.
Anyway, I was just asking because I wasn't sure if I should wait for
another patch.
>
> Thanks,
> Rodrigo.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Widawsky, Benjamin
> Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2014 5:23 PM
> To: Vivi, Rodrigo
> Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: print full error ring semaphore mboxes and
> sync.
>
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 09:39:55AM -0700, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> > With the increasing number of rings,
> > we probably have more information to print than we were printing.
>
> After our discussion were you going to send a new patch?
>
> [snip]
>
>
> --
> Ben Widawsky, Intel Open Source Technology Center
--
Ben Widawsky, Intel Open Source Technology Center
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
