Quoting Maarten Lankhorst (2018-02-12 15:16:39) > Op 12-02-18 om 16:10 schreef Chris Wilson: > > Quoting Maarten Lankhorst (2018-02-09 09:54:00) > >> This is a nice preparation for grabbing the uncore lock during evasion. > >> Grabbing the spinlock with the lock held messes up the locking, > >> so it's easier to handover the reference to the eve > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> --- > >> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sprite.c | 11 ++++------- > >> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sprite.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sprite.c > >> index 3be22c0fcfb5..971a1ea0db45 100644 > >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sprite.c > >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sprite.c > >> @@ -109,10 +109,10 @@ void intel_pipe_update_start(const struct intel_crtc_state *new_crtc_state) > >> > >> local_irq_disable(); > >> > >> - if (min <= 0 || max <= 0) > >> + if (WARN_ON(drm_crtc_vblank_get(&crtc->base))) > >> return; > >> > >> - if (WARN_ON(drm_crtc_vblank_get(&crtc->base))) > >> + if (min <= 0 || max <= 0) > >> return; > >> > > The corresponding vblank_put is the one later in update_start(), right? > > I don't think you intended to keep this chunk. > > -Chris > > I'm not sure what you mean? The vblank_put is now in pipe_update_end, except if the > event takes over the reference. I think the code is correct. :) Then it's unbalanced in the case of error still. -Chris _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
