On 09/08/17 16:14, Lionel Landwerlin wrote:
On 09/08/17 16:02, Chris Wilson wrote:
Quoting Lionel Landwerlin (2017-08-09 15:57:59)
Right, that's exactly what I was asking in our previous exchange.
I just follow the traces, and am internally screaming at how much we are
stuffing inside drm_i915
On 09/08/17 16:02, Chris Wilson wrote:
Quoting Lionel Landwerlin (2017-08-09 15:57:59)
Right, that's exactly what I was asking in our previous exchange.
I just follow the traces, and am internally screaming at how much we are
stuffing inside drm_i915_private nowadays.
You need to leave the
Quoting Lionel Landwerlin (2017-08-09 15:57:59)
> Right, that's exactly what I was asking in our previous exchange.
I just follow the traces, and am internally screaming at how much we are
stuffing inside drm_i915_private nowadays.
> You need to leave the memset() I think, because we check furth
Right, that's exactly what I was asking in our previous exchange.
You need to leave the memset() I think, because we check further down
that function that id == 0 to detect failure to recognize that the (Gen,
GT) is supported.
Unless there is a guarantee that dev_priv is fully memset()?
Thank
Another case where we need to call sysfs_attr_init() to setup the
internal lockdep class prior to use:
[9.325229] BUG: key 880168bc7bb0 not in .data!
[9.325240] DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(1)
[9.325250] [ cut here ]
[9.325280] WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 275 at kernel/
