Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2020-11-20 09:56:36)
> From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> CT event handler is called under the gt->irq_lock from the interrupt
> handling paths so make it the same from the init path. I don't think this
> mismatch caused any functional issue but we need to wean the code of the
> global i915->irq_lock.
ct_read definitely wants to be serialised. Is guc->irq_lock the right
choice?
> Signed-off-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Daniele Ceraolo Spurio <daniele.ceraolospurio@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_uc.c | 7 ++++---
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_uc.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_uc.c
> index 220626c3ad81..6a0452815c41 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_uc.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_uc.c
> @@ -203,7 +203,8 @@ static void guc_disable_interrupts(struct intel_guc *guc)
>
> static int guc_enable_communication(struct intel_guc *guc)
> {
> - struct drm_i915_private *i915 = guc_to_gt(guc)->i915;
> + struct intel_gt *gt = guc_to_gt(guc);
> + struct drm_i915_private *i915 = gt->i915;
> int ret;
>
> GEM_BUG_ON(guc_communication_enabled(guc));
> @@ -223,9 +224,9 @@ static int guc_enable_communication(struct intel_guc *guc)
> guc_enable_interrupts(guc);
>
> /* check for CT messages received before we enabled interrupts */
> - spin_lock_irq(&i915->irq_lock);
> + spin_lock_irq(>->irq_lock);
> intel_guc_ct_event_handler(&guc->ct);
> - spin_unlock_irq(&i915->irq_lock);
> + spin_unlock_irq(>->irq_lock);
You used guc->irq_lock in the previous patch. I suggest
intel_guc_ct_event_handler() should specify what lock it requires.
-Chris
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
