On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 06:29:44PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> I've added a bit of logic such that running the hangman test on chips
> without any hw reset support at all doesn't wedge the gpu because the
> reset failed. This relied on checking for non-null stop_rings.
> Unfortunately I've botche
I've added a bit of logic such that running the hangman test on chips
without any hw reset support at all doesn't wedge the gpu because the
reset failed. This relied on checking for non-null stop_rings.
Unfortunately I've botched a rebase somewhere and stop_rings is still
cleared at the old place b
On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 16:42:05 +0200, Daniel Vetter
wrote:
> I've added a bit of logic such that running the hangman test on chips
> without any hw reset support at all doesn't wedge the gpu because the
> reset failed. This relied on checking for non-null stop_rings.
> Unfortunately I've botched a
On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 17:04:27 +0200, Daniel Vetter
wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 4:57 PM, Chris Wilson
> wrote:
> > On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 16:42:05 +0200, Daniel Vetter
> > wrote:
> >> I've added a bit of logic such that running the hangman test on chips
> >> without any hw reset support at al
On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 4:57 PM, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 16:42:05 +0200, Daniel Vetter
> wrote:
>> I've added a bit of logic such that running the hangman test on chips
>> without any hw reset support at all doesn't wedge the gpu because the
>> reset failed. This relied on chec
I've added a bit of logic such that running the hangman test on chips
without any hw reset support at all doesn't wedge the gpu because the
reset failed. This relied on checking for non-null stop_rings.
Unfortunately I've botched a rebase somewhere and stop_rings is still
cleared at the old place b
