Chris Wilson <ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk> writes:
> For simplicity in testing, only report known rings in the mask. This
> allows userspace to try and trigger a missed irq on every ring and do a
> comparison between i915_ring_test_irq and i915_ring_missed_irq to see if
> any rings failed.
>
> Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk>
> Cc: Mika Kuoppala <mika.kuopp...@intel.com>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c | 9 +--------
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
> index 3da36db9c830..1da821479161 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
> @@ -4615,17 +4615,10 @@ i915_ring_test_irq_set(void *data, u64 val)
> {
> struct drm_device *dev = data;
> struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = dev->dev_private;
> - int ret;
>
> DRM_DEBUG_DRIVER("Masking interrupts on rings 0x%08llx\n", val);
Moving this dbg message past masking would make more sense?
Reviewed-by: Mika Kuoppala <mika.kuopp...@intel.com>
> -
> - /* Lock against concurrent debugfs callers */
> - ret = mutex_lock_interruptible(&dev->struct_mutex);
> - if (ret)
> - return ret;
> -
> + val &= INTEL_INFO(dev_priv)->ring_mask;
> dev_priv->gpu_error.test_irq_rings = val;
> - mutex_unlock(&dev->struct_mutex);
>
> return 0;
> }
> --
> 2.8.1
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
