On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 12:28:18PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > 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. ATCHD inside the irq handler? I am pretty sure that even -nightly doesn't have the irq-barrier inside the irq handler. And yes, we do want to avoid having a massive delay whilst we apply the forcewake workarounds from inside irq handlers. -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
