2014-02-21 13:55 GMT-03:00 Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 01:52:18PM -0300, Paulo Zanoni wrote: >> From: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> >> We currently call intel_mark_idle() too often, as we do so as a >> side-effect of processing the request queue. However, we the calls to >> intel_mark_idle() are expected to be paired with a call to >> intel_mark_busy() (or else we try to idle the hardware by accessing >> registers that are already disabled). Make the idle/busy tracking >> explicit to prevent the multiple calls. >> >> v2: From Paulo >> - Make it compile >> - Drop the __i915_add_request chunk >> >> Reported-by: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni@xxxxxxxxx> >> Tested-by: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni@xxxxxxxxx> >> Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> Cc: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni@xxxxxxxxx> >> Signed-off-by: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni@xxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h | 8 ++++++++ >> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c | 9 +++++++++ >> 2 files changed, 17 insertions(+) >> >> >> Chris did not reply to my review comments yet, so I just went and implemented >> them. We need at least an ACK form him here before merging. > > Didn't see them... Why have you altered the logic? See the comment at the __i915_add_request chunk: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/intel-gfx/2014-February/040334.html Maybe I just broke your patch :) If my review doesn't make sense, we can stick to your version, it should do the job, and I can retest everything easily. > -Chris > > -- > Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre -- Paulo Zanoni _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
