On 03/06/16 17:08, Chris Wilson wrote:
Since the tests can and do explicitly check debugfs/i915_ring_missed_irqs for the handling of a "missed interrupt", adding it to the dmesg at INFO is just noise. When it happens for real, we still class it as an ERROR.Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk> --- drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c | 3 --- 1 file changed, 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c index 5bdb433dde8c..f74f5727ea77 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c @@ -3071,9 +3071,6 @@ static unsigned kick_waiters(struct intel_engine_cs *engine) if (!test_bit(engine->id, &i915->gpu_error.test_irq_rings)) DRM_ERROR("Hangcheck timer elapsed... %s idle\n", engine->name); - else - DRM_INFO("Fake missed irq on %s\n", - engine->name); intel_engine_enable_fake_irq(engine); }
Makes sense, or could be at debug level. Either way: Reviewed-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursu...@intel.com> Regards, Tvrtko _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
