Nouveau - Mar 2016 - [PATCH 3/4] pmu/fuc: call# seems to be broken on gk208

On 26/02/16 17:19, Karol Herbst wrote:
> for some reasons these calls don't really go there where they should go
> leading to various corruptions of the PMU state
I am fine with the changes but not fine at all with the commit message. 
it would be nice if you could understand a bit more what the problem is 
instead of just saying: "it works with this change (TM)"

Anyway, 1-3 are:

Reviewed-by: Martin Peres <martin.peres at free.fr>

On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 4:45 PM, Martin Peres <martin.peres at free.fr>
wrote:
> On 26/02/16 17:19, Karol Herbst wrote:
>>
>> for some reasons these calls don't really go there where they
should go
>> leading to various corruptions of the PMU state
>
>
> I am fine with the changes but not fine at all with the commit message. it
> would be nice if you could understand a bit more what the problem is
instead
> of just saying: "it works with this change (TM)"
The problem is that the call macro exists for a reason, but it was
(accidentally) not being used here.
>
> Anyway, 1-3 are:
>
> Reviewed-by: Martin Peres <martin.peres at free.fr>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Nouveau mailing list
> Nouveau at lists.freedesktop.org
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/nouveau

On 01/03/16 23:53, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 4:45 PM, Martin Peres <martin.peres at
free.fr> wrote:
>> On 26/02/16 17:19, Karol Herbst wrote:
>>> for some reasons these calls don't really go there where they
should go
>>> leading to various corruptions of the PMU state
>>
>> I am fine with the changes but not fine at all with the commit message.
it
>> would be nice if you could understand a bit more what the problem is
instead
>> of just saying: "it works with this change (TM)"
> The problem is that the call macro exists for a reason, but it was
> (accidentally) not being used here.
Agreed, I checked before sending this email. Hence why I was fine with 
the change but not the change log.