On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 12:15:03PM +0900, Michel Dänzer wrote: > On 29.01.2015 08:09, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > The .enable_vblank() operation is only called when vblank interrupts are > > disabled, but no similar check exists when disabling vblank interrupts. > > This leads to .disable_vblank() being called with vblank interrupts > > already disabled and the device possibly runtime suspended. As the > > operation is called with a spinlock held drivers can't runtime resume > > the device there and thus must avoid touching device registers in that > > case, requiring vblank refcounting. > > > > As the DRM core tracks whether vblank interrupts are enabled just skip > > the .disable_vblank() call when the interrupts are already disabled. > > > > Signed-off-by: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Reviewed-by: Michel Dänzer <michel.daenzer@xxxxxxx> Yeah makes sense, pulled into my drm misc pile. Thanks, 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
