On Tue, 23 Apr 2013, Jesse Barnes <jbarnes at virtuousgeek.org> wrote:
> We need to hold the rps lock around punit access.
Reviewed-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula at intel.com>
And a semi-related question while at it... we will need punit access
also for non-rps stuff. Shall we just bundle them under the semantically
wrong rps lock? It would also feel a bit awkward to add another level of
locking for punit when we already have a "hw_lock" in rps.
BR,
Jani.
> Reported-by: Kenneth Graunke <kenneth at whitecape.org>
> Signed-off-by: Jesse Barnes <jbarnes at virtuousgeek.org>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c | 2 ++
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
> index 367b534..d195d09 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
> @@ -1012,6 +1012,7 @@ static int i915_cur_delayinfo(struct seq_file *m, void *unused)
> } else if (IS_VALLEYVIEW(dev)) {
> u32 freq_sts, val;
>
> + mutex_lock(&dev_priv->rps.hw_lock);
> valleyview_punit_read(dev_priv, PUNIT_REG_GPU_FREQ_STS,
> &freq_sts);
> seq_printf(m, "PUNIT_REG_GPU_FREQ_STS: 0x%08x\n", freq_sts);
> @@ -1028,6 +1029,7 @@ static int i915_cur_delayinfo(struct seq_file *m, void *unused)
> seq_printf(m, "current GPU freq: %d MHz\n",
> vlv_gpu_freq(dev_priv->mem_freq,
> (freq_sts >> 8) & 0xff));
> + mutex_unlock(&dev_priv->rps.hw_lock);
> } else {
> seq_printf(m, "no P-state info available\n");
> }
> --
> 1.7.10.4
>
> _______________________________________________
> Intel-gfx mailing list
> Intel-gfx at lists.freedesktop.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
