On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 11:48:30AM -0300, Paulo Zanoni wrote: > Hi > > I'm sorry, I forgot to say. This series is quite old, and I changed it > a little bit since then (since I found one or two problems), including > this patch. I think that, to avoid wasting your time reviewing old > patches, I should resend the new series. > > The problem is that this series should be on top of the 11 patches I > recently sent (with PC8/runtime PM fixes), so if we could review those > first, it would be better. We also need to decide the relative order > of merging your recent series and these patches, because they have > some conflicts. Hm, I've merged the first two patches of this series already, hope that doesn't cause a fuzz ;-) Now looking closer I'm puzzled by the pm_get/put calls in the forcewake get/put functions. Imo any place which needs to have a power well up and runtime (I include runtime pm as the overall power well here) should grab a runtime pm reference for the entire access, not each register cycle. The patch which added this was quite old, so probably before we've fixed the bunch of runtime pm issues around gem batch buffers. And it was part of a big patch which added get/puts mostly over debugfs files and similar places. So I wonder whether we really still need this? I'd much prefer if we could remove it, and if that's not possible fix up the (hopefully few) places where we currently don't grab a runtime pm ref, but should. -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
