On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 5:13 PM, Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. Ah, with closer reading of your patch I've noticed that the uncore_fini is after the above assert, so this indeed has to go. I'm also ok with the overall patch if that doesn't cause another round back to reinstate the delayed forcewake put here ;-) -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
