Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2019-07-04 09:10:32)
>
> On 03/07/2019 13:48, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2019-07-03 13:43:34)
> >>
> >> On 03/07/2019 13:12, Chris Wilson wrote:
> >>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.c
> >>> index 68d54e126d79..bc25a6e51463 100644
> >>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.c
> >>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.c
> >>> @@ -738,6 +738,12 @@ void assert_forcewakes_inactive(struct intel_uncore *uncore)
> >>> void assert_forcewakes_active(struct intel_uncore *uncore,
> >>> enum forcewake_domains fw_domains)
> >>> {
> >>> + struct intel_uncore_forcewake_domain *domain;
> >>> + unsigned int tmp;
> >>> +
> >>> + if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DRM_i915_RUNTIME_PM))
> >>> + return;
> >>> +
> >>
> >> If uncore->funcs.force_wake_get is set why wouldn't we still want to run
> >> the asserts?
> >
> > I'm just being worried by adding a loop under irq-off and didn't want to
> > add more trouble to non-debug kernels. (Closing the stable door much?)
>
> What is the connection between debug/non-debug kernels and
> CONFIG_DRM_i915_RUNTIME_PM?
Well, I can't type obviously. It's meant to be the symbol for
config DRM_I915_DEBUG_RUNTIME_PM
to match the other assert in use.
-Chris
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
