<html> <head> <base href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/" /> </head> <body> <div> <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEW " title="NEW - [drm:si_dpm_set_power_state] *ERROR* si_disable_ulv failed" href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=82889#c18">Comment # 18</a> on <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEW " title="NEW - [drm:si_dpm_set_power_state] *ERROR* si_disable_ulv failed" href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=82889">bug 82889</a> from <a class="email" href="mailto:alexandre.f.demers@gmail.com" title="Alexandre Demers <alexandre.f.demers@gmail.com>"> Alexandre Demers</a> <pre>(In reply to Alex Deucher from <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=82889#c17">comment #17</a>) > Created <a href="attachment.cgi?id=107784" name="attach_107784" title="disable ulv state on SI">attachment 107784</a> <a href="attachment.cgi?id=107784&action=edit" title="disable ulv state on SI">[details]</a> <a href='page.cgi?id=splinter.html&bug=82889&attachment=107784'>[review]</a> [review] > disable ulv state on SI > > (In reply to Alexandre Demers from <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=82889#c16">comment #16</a>) > > Alex, I think this "ERROR" should be at most a warning: I've been commenting > > out the "return ret" when we hit the error, and everything else goes as > > smooth as possible. > > > > Also, do you have any clue on the way we should dig to understand why we are > > hitting this error? As said by Samir, this appeared with dpm. > > It's part of dpm so it only happens when dpm is enabled. ulv is a special > low power state the card can go to in certain idle cases. > > Does the attached patch help? I changed yet again my card and I'm now running a R9 280X. I'll put the old card in tomorrow to have a look at it. So ulv is a feature available on both APUs and 7950 (and some other GPUs). Nice to know. But is ulv support truly supposed to be available on Tahiti? In fact, prior to your patch, why is there already a comment "/* XXX disable for A0 tahiti */" in drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/si_dpm.c but ulv.supported is set to true anyway just on the next line (the one you propose to change in your patch)? To me, it's like saying a thing and doing exactly the opposite at the same time, isn't it? Or is it because there is a special case (Tahiti) that we should be addressing identified by the comment that we are not?</pre> </div> <hr> You are receiving this mail because: <ul> <li>You are the assignee for the bug.</li> </ul> </body> </html>