On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 07:26:34PM -0300, Paulo Zanoni wrote: > From: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni@xxxxxxxxx> > > To solve a chicken-and-egg problem. Currently when we get/put > forcewake we also get/put runtime PM and this works fine because the > runtime PM code doesn't need forcewake. But we're going to merge PC8 > and runtime PM into a single feature, and the PC8 code (the LCPLL > code) does need the forcewake, so that specific piece of code needs to > call the _no_rpm version so it doesn't try to get runtime PM in the > code that gets runtime PM. > > For now the new functions are unused, we'll use them on the patch that > merges PC8 with runtime PM. > > Also notice that, so simplify things, the put() function doesn't use > the workqueue, since the workqueue also puts runtime PM. > > Signed-off-by: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni@xxxxxxxxx> See my previous mail, but I'm still freaked out about this. Doing runtime pm hidden deep down in our register I/O functions is imo rather deeply troubling ... I'll punt for now on this. -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
