Re: Linux-2.6.27-rc5, drm errors in log

["Dave Airlie" <airlied@gmail.com>]

On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 4:23 AM, Gene Heskett <gene.heskett@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday 31 August 2008, Gene Heskett wrote:
>>On Sunday 31 August 2008, Dave Airlie wrote:
>>>On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 12:19 PM, Gene Heskett <gene.heskett@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>>>> On Saturday 30 August 2008, Bridgman, John wrote:
>>>>>))I'm drowning in these errors:
>>>>>))
>>>>>))Aug 30 13:21:05 coyote kernel: [14927.850078] [drm] wait for fifo
>>>>> failed status : 0x80076100 0x00000000
>>>>>
>>>>>I'm just going on the code in your email - can't view git until later
>>>>> today - but in this case it seems like the timeouts were always
>>>>> happening and now there is code to print an error message.
>>>>>
>>>>>IIRC the usual fix is to bump the timeout but (Michael ?) has suggested a
>>>>> couple of times that the ideal solution would be to change the logic so
>>>>> that the driver never times out while the chip is making progress (ie
>>>>> while the number of slots available in the fifo is increasing, even if
>>>>> it hasn't increased enough yet).
>>>>
>>>> FWIW, I added the 3 lines that cause that printout to the 2.6.27-rc4 tree
>>>> and rebuilt it.  There are no more errors being reported now by
>>>> 2.6.27-rc4, and there were none without those 3 added lines prior to
>>>> this, so it is rc5 specific.
>>>
>>>Hmm I'm just looking at the patches I put in for rc5, and there is no
>>>functional difference to the
>>>r200 codepath that I can see from those patches apart from the debug
>>> prints.
>>
>>Update: there were 3 of those in the log after I sent the denial msg.
>>======
>>Aug 30 23:48:34 coyote kernel: [ 7242.890000] [drm] wait for fifo failed
>> status : 0x80076100 0x00000000 Aug 30 23:57:51 coyote kernel: [
>> 7800.370001] [drm] wait for fifo failed status : 0x8003C100 0x00000000 Aug
>> 30 23:57:51 coyote kernel: [ 7800.458000] [drm] wait for fifo failed status
>> : 0x8007C100 0x00000000 ======
>>So this is a real, pre-rc5 problem, but without the reporting that enabled.
>>
>>>Can you get a clean -rc4 and apply just
>>> 54f961a628b737f66710eca0b0d95346645dd33e to it.
>>
>>Yes I can, but how do I get that specific patch?  Or is that the git # for
>> the patch I first applied to -rc2, which added the firmware/radeon stuff?
>> I'm familiar with patch, but not on a first name basis with git, sorry.
>>
>>So I'm going to do a bisect, my style.  I will rebuild, starting with -rc3,
>>using only the -rcX patch and the firmware addition patch, which applied to
>>-rc3 as follows:
>>now applying [PATCH]radeon_cp-use-request_firmware
>>
>>patching file drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_cp.c
>>patching file drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_drv.h
>>patching file drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_microcode.h
>>patching file firmware/Makefile
>>Hunk #1 FAILED at 34.
>>1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file firmware/Makefile.rej
>>===So I added that into the firmware/Makefile at line 28 by hand===
>>patching file firmware/WHENCE
>>Hunk #1 succeeded at 339 (offset -233 lines).
>>patching file firmware/radeon/R100_cp.bin.ihex
>>patching file firmware/radeon/R200_cp.bin.ihex
>>patching file firmware/radeon/R300_cp.bin.ihex
>>patching file firmware/radeon/R420_cp.bin.ihex
>>patching file firmware/radeon/R520_cp.bin.ihex
>>patching file firmware/radeon/RS600_cp.bin.ihex
>>patching file firmware/radeon/RS690_cp.bin.ihex
>>
>>patch [PATCH]radeon_cp-use-request_firmware done
>>
>>=== and I'm watching the build for errors===
>>It got past the MK_FW for those ok.
>>However there were 6 section miss-matches reported, and the suggested
>>addition to .config did not make it any noisier so I'm no smarter.
>>Now I've added those 3 reporter lines to radeon_cp.c, rebuilt again and
>>will reboot to -rc3 for effects, reporting after a few hours uptime.
>
> Ok Dave, I have chased it all the way back to rc1 by adding those 3 lines of
> reporter, and at 2.6.27-rc1 it is still doing it.  This is without the radeon
> firmware patch, but since the microcode is still there in /lib/firmware, the
> log says it is still being loaded.
>
> I am beginning to think this is a very old bug, and this evening I will try
> those 3 reporter lines added to 2.6.25.4 as I still have that src tree here.
>

I think you've probably always had the problem, we just never reported
it before.

There are some timeouts that may be set too low somewhere in userspace
and we may need to adjust them.

Dave.