Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 21 Aug 2012 08:42:35 +0200 | Subject | Re: [ 04/16] drm/i915: correctly order the ring init sequence | From | Daniel Vetter <> |
| |
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 7:13 AM, Herton Ronaldo Krzesinski <herton.krzesinski@canonical.com> wrote: > On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 08:56:03PM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: >> From: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> >> >> 3.0-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know. >> >> ------------------ >> >> From: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch> >> >> commit 0d8957c8a90bbb5d34fab9a304459448a5131e06 upstream. >> >> We may only start to set up the new register values after having >> confirmed that the ring is truely off. Otherwise the hw might lose the >> newly written register values. This is caught later on in the init >> sequence, when we check whether the register writes have stuck. >> >> Reviewed-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com> >> Bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=50522 >> Tested-by: Yang Guang <guang.a.yang@intel.com> >> Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch> >> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> > [...] > > I had the same problem as on 3.2 with this change, i915 stopped working > unable to initialize render ring, eg. on one of the boots here: > [drm:init_ring_common] *ERROR* render ring initialization failed ctl 0001f003 head 00001020 tail 00000000 start 00001000 > > But unlike I was expecting as with 3.2 case, picking commit > f01db988ef6f6c70a6cc36ee71e4a98a68901229 ("drm/i915: Add wait_for in > init_ring_common") here isn't enough, it continues to fail even if I > try to increase the delay in the wait_for, I'm not sure why yet... may > be something else is going on, or 3.0 has something else missing. > > Also the same proposed patch for 3.4.10 gives the same problem, but > picking f01db988ef6f6c70a6cc36ee71e4a98a68901229 there made things work > again like happend on first 3.2.28 proposed update. Only 3.0 > is misteriously failing either way here.
I guess we're missing something then still in the stable backports for 3.0. Herton, what machine do you have exaclty (lspci -nn)?
Greg, I think for now it's better if you hold off on merging this patch to 3.0 until this is sorted out.
Thanks, Daniel -- Daniel Vetter daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch - +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch
| |