On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 18:26:28 +0200, Fernando Pacheco
<fernando.pacheco@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
We should not be skipping uc_fini_hw on finding GuC
is no longer running. There is plenty of hw and internal
state that can be cleaned up without having to communicate
with GuC.
Signed-off-by: Fernando Pacheco <fernando.pacheco@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Daniele Ceraolo Spurio <daniele.ceraolospurio@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdeczko@xxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_uc.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_uc.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_uc.c
index 0dc2b0cf4604..c698cddc14dc 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_uc.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_uc.c
@@ -521,7 +521,7 @@ void intel_uc_fini_hw(struct intel_uc *uc)
{
struct intel_guc *guc = &uc->guc;
- if (!intel_guc_is_running(guc))
+ if (!intel_uc_supports_guc(uc))
there is a huge difference between is_running vs supports_guc
and choosing supports_guc is optimist approach as we can fail
to fetch guc fw and abort early, so maybe
if (!intel_uc_fw_is_available(&guc->fw))
would be closer to reality (assuming we don't fail on wopcm
(hmm, maybe we should force fw state to FAIL in such case?)
return;
if (intel_uc_supports_guc_submission(uc))
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
