Re: [Intel-gfx] Question about how to troubleshoot sandybridge kernel opps and subsequest GPU lockup

2011-10-23 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 11:12:21PM -0500, James R. Leu wrote: > I'm running wow in wine on 64 bit fedora rawhide on a dell vostro 3550 > (i5 with integrated GPU). > > I'm reliably able to produce 2 types of crashes: > - wow freezes, but I can get to text console, in this case I'm able to > grab

Re: [Intel-gfx] Question about how to troubleshoot sandybridge kernel opps and subsequest GPU lockup

2011-10-23 Thread James R. Leu
Hello, I'm running wow in wine on 64 bit fedora rawhide on a dell vostro 3550 (i5 with integrated GPU). I'm reliably able to produce 2 types of crashes: - wow freezes, but I can get to text console, in this case I'm able to grab a kernel stack trace (below) prior to seeing the normal [drm:i9

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/3] drm/i915: Ivybridge still has fences!

2011-10-23 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 01:45:21PM -0700, Kenneth Graunke wrote: > On 10/23/2011 04:23 AM, Chris Wilson wrote: > > Regardless of the outcome of Jesse's request for an if-ladder, the > > substance of the patches look sound. > > > > However, I remain unconvinced that there are 32 fence registers on

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/2] drm/i915: properly prefault for pread/pwrite

2011-10-23 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 12:23:47PM -0700, Keith Packard wrote: > On Sun, 23 Oct 2011 12:18:30 +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > Hi Keith, > > > > This patch isn't in your -next pull. This papers over a spurious -EFAULT > > in the pwrite/pread paths that actually gets hit in the wild. The real fix >

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/3] drm/i915: Ivybridge still has fences!

2011-10-23 Thread Kenneth Graunke
On 10/23/2011 04:23 AM, Chris Wilson wrote: > Regardless of the outcome of Jesse's request for an if-ladder, the > substance of the patches look sound. > > However, I remain unconvinced that there are 32 fence registers on IVB. > Daniel's evidence is based upon the size of the register map (and no

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/3] drm/i915: relative_constants_mode race fix

2011-10-23 Thread Ben Widawsky
Keith, I believe this series belongs in -next. The first two could actually go in fixes. Ben On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 19:41:23 -0700 Ben Widawsky wrote: > After my refactoring, Chris noticed that we had a bug. > > dev_priv keeps track of the current addressing mode that gets set at > execbuffer tim

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: forcewake warning fixes in debugfs

2011-10-23 Thread Ben Widawsky
On Sun, 23 Oct 2011 12:21:38 -0700 Keith Packard wrote: > On Sun, 23 Oct 2011 12:13:43 +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > Hi Keith, > > > > This patch isn't in your -next pull request. Please consider merging for > > 3.2. > > I didn't ever see a reply from Nicolas that it fixed his problem; would

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/2] drm/i915: properly prefault for pread/pwrite

2011-10-23 Thread Keith Packard
On Sun, 23 Oct 2011 12:18:30 +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > Hi Keith, > > This patch isn't in your -next pull. This papers over a spurious -EFAULT > in the pwrite/pread paths that actually gets hit in the wild. The real fix > in the form of a almost complete rewrite of the pwrite/pread paths won't

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: forcewake warning fixes in debugfs

2011-10-23 Thread Keith Packard
On Sun, 23 Oct 2011 12:13:43 +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > Hi Keith, > > This patch isn't in your -next pull request. Please consider merging for > 3.2. I didn't ever see a reply from Nicolas that it fixed his problem; would be nice to know whether this actually worked... -- keith.pack...@inte

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: disable temporal dithering on the internal panel

2011-10-23 Thread Keith Packard
On Sun, 23 Oct 2011 12:03:32 +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > Hi Keith, > > This patch hasn't shown up in your -next pull request. Please consider > merging for 3.2. So small I missed it? I'll send it in the next set after Dave merges what I've posted so far. -- keith.pack...@intel.com pgp1jiX7

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/3] drm/i915: Ivybridge still has fences!

2011-10-23 Thread Chris Wilson
On Sun, 23 Oct 2011 14:09:07 +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > Keith, can take a look at patches 1-2 and consider merging them for 3.2? Those two are Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre ___ Intel-gfx mail

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/3] drm/i915: Ivybridge still has fences!

2011-10-23 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 12:23:14PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > Regardless of the outcome of Jesse's request for an if-ladder, the > substance of the patches look sound. > > However, I remain unconvinced that there are 32 fence registers on IVB. > Daniel's evidence is based upon the size of the re

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/3] drm/i915: Ivybridge still has fences!

2011-10-23 Thread Chris Wilson
Regardless of the outcome of Jesse's request for an if-ladder, the substance of the patches look sound. However, I remain unconvinced that there are 32 fence registers on IVB. Daniel's evidence is based upon the size of the register map (and not on the BSPEC explicitly stating a change to 32 ;-),

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/2] drm/i915: properly prefault for pread/pwrite

2011-10-23 Thread Daniel Vetter
Oosp, forgotten to actually put Keith on the To: ... not enough coffee, yet. -Daniel On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 12:18:30PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > Hi Keith, > > This patch isn't in your -next pull. This papers over a spurious -EFAULT > in the pwrite/pread paths that actually gets hit in the wi

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/3] drm/i915: Ivybridge still has fences!

2011-10-23 Thread Jesse Barnes
On Sun, 23 Oct 2011 12:12:00 +0200 Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 10:58:22AM -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote: > > On Sun, 9 Oct 2011 21:52:01 +0200 > > Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > > > So don't forget to restore them on resume and dump them into > > > the error state. > > > > This sho

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/2] drm/i915: properly prefault for pread/pwrite

2011-10-23 Thread Daniel Vetter
Hi Keith, This patch isn't in your -next pull. This papers over a spurious -EFAULT in the pwrite/pread paths that actually gets hit in the wild. The real fix in the form of a almost complete rewrite of the pwrite/pread paths won't be ready for 3.2. Do you want me to implement Chris' beautificatio

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: forcewake warning fixes in debugfs

2011-10-23 Thread Daniel Vetter
Hi Keith, This patch isn't in your -next pull request. Please consider merging for 3.2. Yours, Daniel On Sat, Oct 08, 2011 at 11:32:34PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Wed, Oct 05, 2011 at 11:44:54AM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote: > > Some more unsafe debugfs access are fixed with this patch. I te

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/3] drm/i915: Ivybridge still has fences!

2011-10-23 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 10:58:22AM -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote: > On Sun, 9 Oct 2011 21:52:01 +0200 > Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > So don't forget to restore them on resume and dump them into > > the error state. > > This should probably just be >= 6 instead; I don't think we're getting > rid of fe

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: only match on PCI_BASE_CLASS_DISPLAY

2011-10-23 Thread Daniel Vetter
Hi Keith This patch isn't in your -next pull request. Please consider merging for 3.2. Yours, Daniel On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 09:40:51AM -0400, Adam Jackson wrote: > On 10/11/11 4:59 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote: > >... not DISPLAY_VGA, because we ignore the VGA subclass with our > >class_mask. > > >

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: disable temporal dithering on the internal panel

2011-10-23 Thread Daniel Vetter
Hi Keith, This patch hasn't shown up in your -next pull request. Please consider merging for 3.2. Yours, Daniel On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 12:02:58PM -0400, Adam Jackson wrote: > On 10/11/11 11:27 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > i'm getting tempted to just disable temporal > > Approved. > > apparen

[Intel-gfx] [PULL] drm-intel-next

2011-10-23 Thread Keith Packard
Here's a pile of new code for the 3.2 series. Overview: * 3 pipe support for IVB. * eDP fixes for SNB * Interrupt race condition fixes * Switch from MI_FLUSH to PIPECONTROL * VT-d work-around for ILK The following changes since commit 0ac225e56997ef89f46eb51b02799a685b78f214: Merge bran