On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 09:26:22AM +0100, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: > Op 05-12-16 om 15:13 schreef ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx: > > From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Each DSPARB register can house bits for two separate pipes, hence > > we must protect the registers during reprogramming so that parallel > > FIFO reconfigurations happening simultaneosly on multiple pipes won't > > corrupt each others values. > > > > We'll use a new spinlock for this instead of the wm_mutex since we'll > > have to move the DSPARB programming to happen from the vblank evade > > critical section, and we can't use mutexes in there. > > > > v2: Document why we use a spinlock instead of a mutex (Maarten) > > > > Cc: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Reviewed-by: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Thanks. Pushed to dinq. -- Ville Syrjälä Intel OTC _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
