On Thu, 2019-04-04 at 17:22 -0700, Dhinakaran Pandiyan wrote:
> On Wed, 2019-04-03 at 16:35 -0700, José Roberto de Souza wrote:
> > Even when driver is reloaded and hits this scenario the PSR mutex
> > should be initialized, otherwise reading PSR debugfs status will
> > execute mutex_lock() over a mutex that was not initialized.
> >
> > Cc: Dhinakaran Pandiyan <dhinakaran.pandiyan@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: José Roberto de Souza <jose.souza@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c | 1 -
> > 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c
> > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c
> > index c80bb3003a7d..a84da931c3be 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c
> > @@ -1227,7 +1227,6 @@ void intel_psr_init(struct drm_i915_private
> > *dev_priv)
> > if (val) {
> > DRM_DEBUG_KMS("PSR interruption error set\n");
> > dev_priv->psr.sink_not_reliable = true;
> Should we just sink_support = false and keep the return? IOW is there
> any use
> for sink_not_reliable?
I guess it could cause confusion as user had PSR support before the
module reload and after the load PSR debugfs will say that sink do not
support PSR.
>
> > - return;
> > }
> >
> > /* Set link_standby x link_off defaults */
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
