Quoting Michal Wajdeczko (2018-10-12 14:26:09) > In function i915_gem_init_hw we are initializing some uC code that i915_gem_init_hw really shouldn't be called such, at least it doesn't fit in with the global init_hw phase. Suggestions for a clearer name welcome. > requires some cleanup. Then during unwind we call this uC cleanup > function directly which breaks symmetry and layering. Fix that by > adding i915_gem_fini_hw for symmetry with i915_gem_init_hw. There's a lot that we do in init_hw that we presume will be undone by reset. The asymmetry looks inherent, but I wonder if it would be better expressed as we are missing a global reset along the error path. It also has to be said that we cannot support intel_uc_init_hw() from within a struct_mutex-less i915_reset. (I have a patch to disable global reset while guc is enabled to avoid the deadlock, forcing us to rely on per-engine resets in that case). Anyway, I'm hesitant to call the suggested i915_gem_fini_hw() as the compliment to i915_gem_init_hw() and feel a little more convincing is in order. -Chris _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
