> > > > Any other suggestions? > > I think it will boil down to the reason uncore lock is held over the > respective sections ie. the comment in i915_get_crtc_scanoutpos. > > If it is timing sensitive to the extent irq off was needed it may > apply > to Xe as well. Likewise the need to use mmio helpers which rely on > the > uncore lock already held. Question of whether there is conceptual > commonality, will probably drive the best name, or the best approach > in > general. yeap, this is how I'm seeing this. If i915-display needs this global lock around mmio operations, then we wound need to add it to the xe_mmio as well and then solve the name, etc. However, I don't believe that other users of the mmio would need this lock. So I believe the right thing to do is to create a i915- display only spin_lock, around the intel_de_mmio calls and here. With this we entirely kill the dependency on someone-else's lock and have something that is entirely inside display code so it doesn't need to be ported to one or another driver core components. > > Regards, > > Tvrtko
