Quoting Mika Kuoppala (2019-01-09 10:20:26) > Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > @@ -1735,29 +1743,30 @@ static int i915_emon_status(struct seq_file *m, void *unused) > > struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = node_to_i915(m->private); > > struct drm_device *dev = &dev_priv->drm; > > unsigned long temp, chipset, gfx; > > + intel_wakeref_t wakeref; > > int ret; > > > > if (!IS_GEN(dev_priv, 5)) > > return -ENODEV; > > > > - intel_runtime_pm_get(dev_priv); > > - > > ret = mutex_lock_interruptible(&dev->struct_mutex); > > if (ret) > > return ret; > > > > + wakeref = intel_runtime_pm_get(dev_priv); > > + > > temp = i915_mch_val(dev_priv); > > chipset = i915_chipset_val(dev_priv); > > gfx = i915_gfx_val(dev_priv); > > mutex_unlock(&dev->struct_mutex); > > > > + intel_runtime_pm_put(dev_priv, wakeref); > > + > > I am a little surprised if this was the only callsite > for tighter scoping in this file. It's a recent regression. (Despite a patch to fix it correctly... Bitter, moi?) -Chris _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
