Hi, Please, next time, do not remove the mailing and the other folks you cc'ed. I'm adding back the mailing list and Daniele who has commented before. ... > > > Closes: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/i915/kernel/-/issues/13454 > > > Fixes: 26705e20752a ("drm/i915: Support for GuC interrupts") > > > Fixes: 54c52a841250 ("drm/i915/guc: Correctly handle GuC interrupts on Gen11") > > > Fixes: 2ae096872a2c ("drm/i915/pxp: Implement PXP irq handler") > > > Fixes: 3e7abf814193 ("drm/i915: Extract GT render power state management") > > > > There is an issue here, each fixes is introduced in different > > kernel versions and they can't be mixed all together as it would > > be impossible to backport them to the stable brances. > > > > E.g.: > > Fixes: 3e7abf814193 ("drm/i915: Extract GT render power state management") > > Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> # v5.5+ > > > > Fixes: 2ae096872a2c ("drm/i915/pxp: Implement PXP irq handler") > > Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> # v5.16+ > > > > Fixes: 54c52a841250 ("drm/i915/guc: Correctly handle GuC interrupts on Gen11") > > Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> # v5.3+ > > > > Fixes: 26705e20752a ("drm/i915: Support for GuC interrupts") > > Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> # v4.10+ > > > > Could you please split this patch in the four different patches > > that address the four different fixes? > Sure, will split it in next rev. First of all we need to understand if those Fixes are really needed or not. Daniele in his review has pointed out that... > > > > > > > No blank lines in the tag section, please. > > > > > Signed-off-by: Zhanjun Dong <zhanjun.dong@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > --- > > > Cc: Alan Previn <alan.previn.teres.alexis@xxxxxxxxx> > > > Cc: Daniele Ceraolo Spurio <daniele.ceraolospurio@xxxxxxxxx> > > > Cc: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@xxxxxxxxx> > > > Cc: Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdeczko@xxxxxxxxx> > > > Cc: Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@xxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_rps.c | 3 +-- > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc.c | 4 ++-- > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/pxp/intel_pxp_irq.c | 2 +- > > > 3 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_rps.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_rps.c > > > index fa304ea088e4..0fe7a8d7f460 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_rps.c > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_rps.c > > > @@ -244,8 +244,8 @@ static void rps_disable_interrupts(struct intel_rps *rps) > > > gen6_gt_pm_disable_irq(gt, GEN6_PM_RPS_EVENTS); > > > spin_unlock_irq(gt->irq_lock); > > > + rps_reset_interrupts(rps); ... the interrupts here are already disabled (read a couple of lines above). What is the reproduction rate of the issue? And how have you tested it? Thanks, Andi > > > intel_synchronize_irq(gt->i915); > > > - > > > > Sebastian has already commented in his review, but please don't > > remove this blank line. > > > > Andi > > > > > /* > > > * Now that we will not be generating any more work, flush any > > > * outstanding tasks. As we are called on the RPS idle path,
