On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 02:44:47PM +0300, ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> GMBUS is part of the display engine, and thus has no need for
> forcewake. Let's not bother trying to grab it then.
>
> I don't recall if the display engine suffers from system hangs
> due to multiple accesses to the same "cacheline" in mmio space.
> I hope not since we're no longer protected by the uncore lock
> since commit 4e6c2d58ba86 ("drm/i915: Take forcewake once for
> the entire GMBUS transaction")
Only applies to concurrent access to the same cacheline, in this case
should be serialised by the mutex around the gmbus xfer.
> Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: David Weinehall <david.weinehall@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_i2c.c | 5 -----
> 1 file changed, 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_i2c.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_i2c.c
> index 79aab9ad6faa..49c7824a4c29 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_i2c.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_i2c.c
> @@ -468,13 +468,9 @@ do_gmbus_xfer(struct i2c_adapter *adapter, struct i2c_msg *msgs, int num)
> struct intel_gmbus,
> adapter);
> struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = bus->dev_priv;
> - const unsigned int fw =
> - intel_uncore_forcewake_for_reg(dev_priv, GMBUS0,
> - FW_REG_READ | FW_REG_WRITE);
> int i = 0, inc, try = 0;
> int ret = 0;
I915_WARN_ON(intel_uncore_forcewake_for_reg(dev_priv, GMBUS0,
FW_REG_READ |
FW_REG_WRITE));
? Would be good to test the fw handling as well.
-Chris
--
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
