<html> <head> <base href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/" /> </head> <body> <div> <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEW " title="NEW - Reproducible GPU hang on Intel HD5500 — ecode 8:0:0x84df3c1c" href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=92623#c12">Comment # 12</a> on <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEW " title="NEW - Reproducible GPU hang on Intel HD5500 — ecode 8:0:0x84df3c1c" href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=92623">bug 92623</a> from <a class="email" href="mailto:delroth@gmail.com" title="Pierre Bourdon <delroth@gmail.com>"> Pierre Bourdon</a> <pre>So I've been looking at this for the past N hours in the hope of learning more about how Mesa and i965 work (and I've already learned a lot \o/). I noticed something that I find interesting though. It might be completely normal and uninteresting, but if it is I'm curious about the explanation. I randomly figured out that adding BRW_NEW_FRAGMENT_PROGRAM to the dirty bits that trigger upload_wm_state and gen8_emit_pma_stall_workaround works around the crash bug. But both of these should already trigger on BRW_NEW_FS_PROG_DATA being dirty. In what condition should BRW_NEW_FRAGMENT_PROGRAM be dirty but not BRW_NEW_FS_PROG_DATA? It sounds like getting a new fragment program should in practice always come with a new prog_data as well?</pre> </div> <hr> You are receiving this mail because: <ul> <li>You are the QA Contact for the bug.</li> </ul> </body> </html>