On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 11:21:52AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 02:35:07PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > irq handlers always run with interrupts locally disabled, so > > plain spinlocks is all we need. I've also reviewed again that they > > all follow the _irq_handler postfix convention. > > Hmm, we still have the full irq dance inside the reg read/write macros, > which themselves should never be used from inside the irq handlers. > > (Modulo the misgivings in execlists_irq_handler). Hm, we still have the ACTHEAD hack to read somewhat coherent-ish seqnos. Dunno whether open-coding that would make sense really, and whether it's really beneficial to force register writes to never acquire forcewake from irq context. Definitely material for different patches though. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
