On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 04:51:16PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 08:37:15AM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote: > > --- > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c | 2 +- > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.c | 9 ++------- > > 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c > > index 5a0d34c47885..3fbf8aa8d119 100644 > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c > > @@ -845,11 +845,11 @@ static int i915_runtime_suspend(struct device *device) > > struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = dev->dev_private; > > > > WARN_ON(!HAS_RUNTIME_PM(dev)); > > - assert_force_wake_inactive(dev_priv); > > Why is this necessary? Also I've already pushed a pile of other patches on > top of all this, so I think a full commit is better. Also gives us an > excuse to document our flailing here a bit better in a neat commit message > ... Imo we should also mention that the forcewake_put here isn't really > perf critical any more (if this is really the case). I was continuing the conversation with example code... This is, I think, the simplest method for removing the pm_put from the forcewake timer, and just wanted to make sure that we were in agreement before writing a paragraph to explain the problem. -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
