Hi Rodrigo, ... > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt_pm_debugfs.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt_pm_debugfs.c > > index 4fcba42cfe34..0437fd8217e0 100644 > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt_pm_debugfs.c > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt_pm_debugfs.c > > @@ -71,6 +71,8 @@ static int fw_domains_show(struct seq_file *m, void *data) > > struct intel_uncore_forcewake_domain *fw_domain; > > unsigned int tmp; > > > > + spin_lock_irq(&uncore->lock); > > + > > seq_printf(m, "user.bypass_count = %u\n", > > uncore->user_forcewake_count); > > > > @@ -79,6 +81,8 @@ static int fw_domains_show(struct seq_file *m, void *data) > > intel_uncore_forcewake_domain_to_str(fw_domain->id), > > READ_ONCE(fw_domain->wake_count)); > > > > + spin_unlock_irq(&uncore->lock); > > I was going to ask to move all of this to a function inside intel_uncore.c > so we keep the lock access in there.... But then I noticed it is already > spread all over :( Yeah... maybe some refactoring might be needed there. > Well, perhaps we should start from here to set the precedence and move > things to its own component... but well, I won't block or make it hard, > we do need this change and the overall uncore cleanup could be orthogonal. > > Reviewed-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@xxxxxxxxx> Thanks, Andi
