On Sat, Mar 08, 2014 at 09:36:01AM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote: > On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 08:05:19PM -0300, Paulo Zanoni wrote: > > From: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > So far force_wake_timer was only used by gen6_gt_force_wake_put. Since > > we always had balanced gen6_gt_force_wake_get/put calls, we could > > guarantee balanced calls to intel_runtime_pm_get/put. > > I'm sure you can think of a trivial way to put things back into balance. Yeah, I think a __force_wake_timer which doesn't do the runtime put should be good enough. Chris, can I sign you up for this since Paulo is now on vacation for 2 weeks? No real hurry since we need to stall for QA to hit this anyway - if they still fail to properly run the runtime pm tests then I need to go into full maintainer beserk mode ;-) Cheers, 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
