| Message ID | 1393001548-2883-11-git-send-email-przanoni@gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Fri, 2014-02-21 at 13:52 -0300, Paulo Zanoni wrote: > From: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni@intel.com> > > Because gen6_gt_force_wake_{get,put} should already be responsible for > getting/putting runtime PM. > > Signed-off-by: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni@intel.com> Reviewed-by: Imre Deak <imre.deak@intel.com> > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c | 2 -- > 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c > index 62d0c0915..2ec7b05 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c > @@ -3597,7 +3597,6 @@ static int i915_forcewake_open(struct inode *inode, struct file *file) > if (INTEL_INFO(dev)->gen < 6) > return 0; > > - intel_runtime_pm_get(dev_priv); > gen6_gt_force_wake_get(dev_priv, FORCEWAKE_ALL); > > return 0; > @@ -3612,7 +3611,6 @@ static int i915_forcewake_release(struct inode *inode, struct file *file) > return 0; > > gen6_gt_force_wake_put(dev_priv, FORCEWAKE_ALL); > - intel_runtime_pm_put(dev_priv); > > return 0; > }
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 01:52:27PM -0300, Paulo Zanoni wrote: > From: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni@intel.com> > > Because gen6_gt_force_wake_{get,put} should already be responsible for > getting/putting runtime PM. > > Signed-off-by: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni@intel.com> > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c | 2 -- > 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c > index 62d0c0915..2ec7b05 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c > @@ -3597,7 +3597,6 @@ static int i915_forcewake_open(struct inode *inode, struct file *file) > if (INTEL_INFO(dev)->gen < 6) > return 0; > > - intel_runtime_pm_get(dev_priv); > gen6_gt_force_wake_get(dev_priv, FORCEWAKE_ALL); I agree that doing the runtime get/put from within the forcewake get/put gives us nice nesting. The with that is that we do the forcewake get/put from within register I/O functions, which means it's not simple at all to figure out where all runtime_pm_get is called, which can lead to some big surprises around locking (since our resume functions do a _lot_ of work). This is the reason why I've asked for the exception for the forcewake -> runtime pm nesting. We could fix this properly by moving the forcewake get/put out of the register read/write functions and sprinkle it explicitly over the code, but that's a _lot_ more work. For now I'll punt on this patch until convinced otherwise. -Daniel > > return 0; > @@ -3612,7 +3611,6 @@ static int i915_forcewake_release(struct inode *inode, struct file *file) > return 0; > > gen6_gt_force_wake_put(dev_priv, FORCEWAKE_ALL); > - intel_runtime_pm_put(dev_priv); > > return 0; > } > -- > 1.8.5.3 > > _______________________________________________ > Intel-gfx mailing list > Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c index 62d0c0915..2ec7b05 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c @@ -3597,7 +3597,6 @@ static int i915_forcewake_open(struct inode *inode, struct file *file) if (INTEL_INFO(dev)->gen < 6) return 0; - intel_runtime_pm_get(dev_priv); gen6_gt_force_wake_get(dev_priv, FORCEWAKE_ALL); return 0; @@ -3612,7 +3611,6 @@ static int i915_forcewake_release(struct inode *inode, struct file *file) return 0; gen6_gt_force_wake_put(dev_priv, FORCEWAKE_ALL); - intel_runtime_pm_put(dev_priv); return 0; }