Summary: | [BAT][BYT] WARN intel_uncore.c:792 __unclaimed_reg_debug (reg 0x18650c) | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | DRI | Reporter: | Martin Peres <martin.peres> |
Component: | DRM/Intel | Assignee: | Intel GFX Bugs mailing list <intel-gfx-bugs> |
Status: | CLOSED FIXED | QA Contact: | Intel GFX Bugs mailing list <intel-gfx-bugs> |
Severity: | critical | ||
Priority: | high | CC: | intel-gfx-bugs, krisman |
Version: | DRI git | ||
Hardware: | Other | ||
OS: | All | ||
Whiteboard: | ReadyForDev | ||
i915 platform: | SKL | i915 features: | display/Other |
Description
Martin Peres
2017-06-20 13:24:13 UTC
Adding tag into "Whiteboard" field - ReadyForDev *Status is correct *Platform is included *Feature is included *Priority and Severity correctly set *Logs included (In reply to Martin Peres from comment #0) > Our two baytrails starting reporting the following warning randomly when > running igt@kms_pipe_crc_basic@suspend-read-crc-pipe-b, starting from > CI_DRM_2743: > > [ 502.355408] Unclaimed read from register 0x18650c For the record, MMIO(650c) is GCI_CONTROL, which is read at vlv_program_pfi_credits. Specification explains that a MMIO is unclaimable if performed in an address of a powered down power well, so I suppose the same workaround for 101517 should apply here. With that in mind, I'm marking this as a DUP of 101517. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 101517 *** While 101517 indeed got fixed, this one is still very much present. (In reply to Martin Peres from comment #3) > While 101517 indeed got fixed, this one is still very much present. Hi Martin, Can you please point to the testcase that is still failing with unclaimed register 650c? I am considering that the other "Unclaimed read from register 0x1f0034" is a different bug. (In reply to krisman from comment #4) > (In reply to Martin Peres from comment #3) > > While 101517 indeed got fixed, this one is still very much present. > > Hi Martin, > > Can you please point to the testcase that is still failing with unclaimed > register 650c? I am considering that the other "Unclaimed read from register > 0x1f0034" is a different bug. Sure, it is igt@kms_pipe_crc_basic@suspend-read-crc-pipe-b. You can check out the results here: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/CI/fi-byt-j1900.html (In reply to Martin Peres from comment #5) > (In reply to krisman from comment #4) > > (In reply to Martin Peres from comment #3) > > > While 101517 indeed got fixed, this one is still very much present. > > > > Hi Martin, > > > > Can you please point to the testcase that is still failing with unclaimed > > register 650c? I am considering that the other "Unclaimed read from register > > 0x1f0034" is a different bug. > > Sure, it is igt@kms_pipe_crc_basic@suspend-read-crc-pipe-b. You can check > out the results here: > > https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/CI/fi-byt-j1900.html Thanks for the information,but if I read the data correctly, after CI_2783, I don't see references to Unclaimable register 0x650c, only to other registers around 0x1f0034, which affects other parts of the code (vlv_program_watermarks), and I believe should be addressed in a different bug. Either way, I'll dig into that issue now. (In reply to krisman from comment #6) > (In reply to Martin Peres from comment #5) > > (In reply to krisman from comment #4) > > > (In reply to Martin Peres from comment #3) > > > > While 101517 indeed got fixed, this one is still very much present. > > > > > > Hi Martin, > > > > > > Can you please point to the testcase that is still failing with unclaimed > > > register 650c? I am considering that the other "Unclaimed read from register > > > 0x1f0034" is a different bug. > > > > Sure, it is igt@kms_pipe_crc_basic@suspend-read-crc-pipe-b. You can check > > out the results here: > > > > https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/CI/fi-byt-j1900.html > > Thanks for the information,but if I read the data correctly, after CI_2783, > I don't see references to Unclaimable register 0x650c, only to other > registers around 0x1f0034, which affects other parts of the code > (vlv_program_watermarks), and I believe should be addressed in a different > bug. Either way, I'll dig into that issue now. You are right. I opened this bug: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=101705 |
Use of freedesktop.org services, including Bugzilla, is subject to our Code of Conduct. How we collect and use information is described in our Privacy Policy.