On Mon, Oct 07, 2024 at 09:46:53PM +0300, Imre Deak wrote: > On Mon, Oct 07, 2024 at 09:29:46PM +0300, Cavitt, Jonathan wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Intel-xe <intel-xe-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Imre Deak > > Sent: Monday, October 7, 2024 7:06 AM > > To: intel-xe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Cc: Vivi, Rodrigo <rodrigo.vivi@xxxxxxxxx> > > Subject: [PATCH 2/2] drm/xe: Add missing HPD interrupt enabling during non-d3cold RPM resume > > > > > > Atm the display HPD interrupts that got disabled during runtime > > > suspend, are re-enabled only if d3cold is enabled. Fix things by > > > also re-enabling the interrupts if d3cold is disabled. > > > > > > Cc: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@xxxxxxxxx> > > > Signed-off-by: Imre Deak <imre.deak@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > Is there a reason this ended up as a separate patch? > > On the principle of doing one thing in one patch: the first is > refactoring, this one is a fix. We do need this, but we need a lot more. Please help on the review of the consolidation and the true split: https://lore.kernel.org/intel-xe/20240924204222.246862-1-rodrigo.vivi@xxxxxxxxx/T/#m482df5716f81e6f6a3b5f459f57f193a4292ab52 > > > Not blocking, just curious. > > Reviewed-by: Jonathan Cavitt <jonathan.cavitt@xxxxxxxxx> > > -Jonathan Cavitt > > > > > --- > > > drivers/gpu/drm/xe/display/xe_display.c | 1 + > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/display/xe_display.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/display/xe_display.c > > > index cb2449b7921ac..695c27ac6b0f8 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/display/xe_display.c > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/display/xe_display.c > > > @@ -486,6 +486,7 @@ void xe_display_pm_runtime_resume(struct xe_device *xe) > > > return; > > > } > > > > > > + intel_hpd_init(xe); > > > intel_hpd_poll_disable(xe); > > > } > > > > > > -- > > > 2.44.2 > > > > > >
