On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 17:24:17 +0000 Liviu Dudau <liviu.dudau@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 02:57:05PM +0100, Boris Brezillon wrote: > > panthor_xxx_irq_suspend() doesn't mask the interrupts if drm_dev_unplug() > > has been called, which is always the case when our panthor_xxx_unplug() > > helpers are called. Fix that by introducing a panthor_xxx_unplug() helper > > that does what panthor_xxx_irq_suspend() except it does it > > unconditionally. > > I understand that drm_dev_unplug() messes up with the cleanup, but I'm a bit > reluctant to see a function that completely ignores if the device has been > unplugged or not. Like mentioned on the review of 2/3, can we move the masking > of the interrupts outside the critical section and not add drm_dev_unplug() ? Nope, because the whole point of this drm_dev_enter/exit() section was to prevent accesses to registers when the associated iomem range has been returned to the system after the device has been removed. If you move this gpu_write() outside of the drm_dev_enter/exit() you're better off dropping this check entirely...
