On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 4:27 PM, Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 04:23:40PM +0200, Sedat Dilek wrote: >> On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 3:36 PM, Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 12:37:44PM +0200, Sedat Dilek wrote: >> >> On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Jani Nikula >> >> <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> > On Thu, 25 Jul 2013, Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> >> On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 12:02 PM, Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> >>> On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Jani Nikula >> >> >>> <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> >>>> On Thu, 25 Jul 2013, Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> >>>>> On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 7:12 AM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> >>>>>> Hi all, >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> Changes since 20130724: >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> Removed tree: >> >> >>>>>> arm-dt (at maintainer's request) >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> The wireless-next tree lost its build failure and gained a conflict >> >> >>>>>> against Linus' tree. >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> The tty tree lost its build failure. >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> The staging tree gained a build failure for which I disabled a driver. >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> [ CCing drm and drm-intel folks ] >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> With today's next-20130725 I see the following: >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> Use of dev_priv->gt_lock in I915_WRITE through >> >> >>>> intel_disable_gt_powersave before spin lock init, caused by >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> commit 181d1b9e31c668259d3798c521672afb8edd355c >> >> >>>> Author: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx> >> >> >>>> Date: Sun Jul 21 13:16:24 2013 +0200 >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> drm/i915: fix up gt init sequence fallout >> >> >>>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Ah, cool. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> I assumed/tested "drm/i915: fix the racy object accounting", but this >> >> >>> does not fix it. >> >> >>> Will try with yours. >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> Sorry, Jani. >> >> >> >> >> >> next-20130725 ships the patch you pointed, too. >> >> > >> >> > Confused. I meant that the above mentioned commit "drm/i915: fix up gt >> >> > init sequence fallout" causes the problem. The patch I included in my >> >> > mail should fix it. Could you try that please? >> >> > >> >> >> >> [ Note2myself: Do not read half of the message... ] >> >> >> >> The bad... Your patch needed some refresh against next-20130725 (guess >> >> it's against drm-intel-nightly). >> >> >> >> The good... YES, your patch fixes the issue for me! >> >> >> >> The ugly... /me. >> >> >> >> Feel free to add my: >> >> >> >> Tested-by: Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@xxxxxxxxx> >> >> >> >> Thanks for the quick fix! >> > >> > Thanks a lot for the report, since this should be something I should have >> > caught. And for added insult the offending patch is already in Linus' tree >> > :( Patch merged to -fixes. >> >> Hmmm, don't you merge -fixes into -nightly? > > I do, but it seems to only blow up with spinlock debugging enabling I > think. Our QA should run full debug buils in the -nightly testing, but > apparently they didn't catch this. I'm looking into what went wrong here > and fix up the process. First, I thought I made my merge wrong, but there is no $ grep spin_lock_init linux-next/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_dma.c | grep gt_lock Same in [1]: ... spin_lock_init(&dev_priv->irq_lock); spin_lock_init(&dev_priv->gpu_error.lock); spin_lock_init(&dev_priv->backlight.lock); spin_lock_init(&dev_priv->uncore.lock); spin_lock_init(&dev_priv->mm.object_stat_lock); ... - Sedat - [1] http://cgit.freedesktop.org/~danvet/drm-intel/tree/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_dma.c?h=drm-intel-nightly#n1477 > -Daniel > -- > Daniel Vetter > Software Engineer, Intel Corporation > +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
