On 1/7/2019 03:54, Chris Wilson wrote:
The majority of runtime-pm operations are bounded and scoped within a
function; these are easy to verify that the wakeref are handled
correctly. We can employ the compiler to help us, and reduce the number
of wakerefs tracked when debugging, by passing around cookies provided
by the various rpm_get functions to their rpm_put counterpart. This
makes the pairing explicit, and given the required wakeref cookie the
compiler can verify that we pass an initialised value to the rpm_put
(quite handy for double checking error paths).
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxx>
---
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_perf.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_perf.c
index b0cbad2e83c5..faff6cf1aaa1 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_perf.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_perf.c
@@ -1364,14 +1364,14 @@ static void i915_oa_stream_destroy(struct i915_perf_stream *stream)
free_oa_buffer(dev_priv);
- put_oa_config(dev_priv, stream->oa_config);
-
intel_uncore_forcewake_put(dev_priv, FORCEWAKE_ALL);
intel_runtime_pm_put(dev_priv, stream->wakeref);
if (stream->ctx)
oa_put_render_ctx_id(stream);
+ put_oa_config(dev_priv, stream->oa_config);
+
if (dev_priv->perf.oa.spurious_report_rs.missed) {
DRM_NOTE("%d spurious OA report notices suppressed due to ratelimiting\n",
dev_priv->perf.oa.spurious_report_rs.missed);
Is this not reversing a change from patch 9/46? Is there a reason why
the oa_config scope needs to change temporarily for some of the series?
Or can this diff be folded down and optimised out of both patches?
John.
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
