On Mit, 2012-01-04 at 12:44 +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Wed, Jan 04, 2012 at 12:29:24PM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote: > > On Mit, 2012-01-04 at 11:54 +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > On Wed, Jan 04, 2012 at 11:33:40AM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote: > > > > From: Michel Dänzer <michel.daenzer@xxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > It can be the case e.g. when switching to console for panic output. > > > > > > > > Bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43941 > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Michel Dänzer <michel.daenzer@xxxxxxx> > > > > --- > > > > > > > > v2: Still call msleep() in the normal case. Only compile tested. > > > > > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/atom.c | 2 ++ > > > > 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/atom.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/atom.c > > > > index 14cc88a..4092e59 100644 > > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/atom.c > > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/atom.c > > > > @@ -665,6 +665,8 @@ static void atom_op_delay(atom_exec_context *ctx, int *ptr, int arg) > > > > SDEBUG(" count: %d\n", count); > > > > if (arg == ATOM_UNIT_MICROSEC) > > > > udelay(count); > > > > + else if (in_interrupt() || irqs_disabled() || in_atomic()) > > > > + mdelay(count); > > > > > > Afaics in_atomic subsumes in_interrupt. irqs_disabled looks like a nice > > > addition to cover up the !CONFIG_PREEMPT case. i915 (in intel_drv.h) also > > > checks for in_dbg_master() to take care of kdbg. > > > > > > Can I bother you to create a small helper like in_atomic_kms_context that > > > checks these three things (and also use it in drm/i915)? > > > > Sorry, I've already spent way more time on this than I meant to, and > > Alan just killed what little motivation I still had to spend more. > > I think Alan's simply wrong. The msleep checks in i915 are only used for > two cases: > - when using kdbg > - when displaying a panic > Afaics radeon has the exact same issue, at least I've seen my radeon > machine here go down after an oops. Splattering the entire driver for > these two corner cases which don't happen at all under normal > circumstances is imho utter nonsense. > > I.e. I'd be very happy to smash a r-b onto your patch if you unifiy the > magical checks with i915 in a common function and add a small comment. > Does the prospect of an up-front r-b and me promising to harass Dave to > merge it restore your motivation? It's certainly helping. :) I'll see what I can do. -- Earthling Michel Dänzer | http://www.amd.com Libre software enthusiast | Debian, X and DRI developer _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
