2012/11/7 Imre Deak <imre.deak@xxxxxxxxx>
On Wed, 2012-11-07 at 18:31 +0900, Inki Dae wrote:Ok, thanks for checking this. I assume then that this patchset will get
> 2012/11/2 Imre Deak <imre.deak@xxxxxxxxx>
> The patchset adds the missing event_lock when accessing the
> vblank_event_list in drm_vblank_off() and as preparation for
> this
> also fixes a few other issues in the exynos driver.
> This is also a dependency for Rob Clark's
> drm_send_vblank_event()
> rework as that would trigger a warning for the unhold
> event_lock without
> this changeset.
> The exynos changes are only compile tested, the rest is tested
> on an
> Intel IVB machine on top of drm-intel-nightly +
> drm_send_vblank_event()
> rework, with i-g-t/flip_test.
> Hi Imre,
> Works fine. But we should wait for Rob's patch set to be merged to
> -next, and this may be rebased on top of latest Rob's patch set again.
merged through your tree.
I think Rob's patchset depends on this, so ideally this should go first.
Otherwise the i915 driver would trigger the WARN in his patchset due to
the unheld event_lock.
Ok, but I merge it first, shouldn't Rob's patch set be rebased? Anyway this is minor issue so I could resolve it. And it seems like that your patch set has no dependency of Rob's. I mean that your patch set worked fine without Rob's.
Thanks,
Inki Dae
--Imre
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
_______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
