On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 1:12 PM, Christian König <deathsim...@vodafone.de> wrote: > Am 25.03.2013 17:50, schrieb Jerome Glisse: > >> On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 12:38 PM, Christian König >> <deathsim...@vodafone.de> wrote: >>> >>> Am 25.03.2013 17:01, schrieb j.gli...@gmail.com: >>> >>>> From: Jerome Glisse <jgli...@redhat.com> >>>> >>>> Same as on r600, trace cs execution by writting cs offset after each >>>> states, this allow to pin point lockup inside command stream and >>>> narrow down the scope of lockup investigation. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Jerome Glisse <jgli...@redhat.com> >>> >>> >>> Could your rewrite this to use an si_pm4_state instead of hand coding it? >>> It's cleaner and should reduce the needed code quite a bit. >>> >>> Christian. >> >> Well no, the whole point is to emit inside each si_pm4_state_emit so >> that you can pin point which reg/packet trigger the lockup. > > > Ok, well then it makes no sense that you increment the counter only once per > flush. > > Christian.
The counter is for tracking the cs number (number of call to cs ioctl), while in r600_emit_trace i emit both the counter and the cs->cdw value so that you have both the dwords offset of last trace that went through as well as which cs ioctl call it was. The printf of command stream print both so that you can easily pin point things. Cheers, Jerome _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
