On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 01:27:06PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 01:59:10PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > We need to make sure that no one else is using this in the
> > enable function and also that the work item hasn't raced
> > with the disabled function.
> >
> > v2: Improve bisectability by moving one hunk to an earlier patch.
> >
> > Cc: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c | 5 +++++
> > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> > index 910f73de3a92..870219ff1187 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> > @@ -1844,6 +1844,11 @@ void intel_edp_psr_enable(struct intel_dp *intel_dp)
> > return;
> > }
>
> Is this the tail of a HAS_PSR() now made obsolete?
Yeah, we have a bit of redundancy here now I think. Otoh once we have
locking they make sense again since HAS_PSR can be checked without
grabbing the psr lock, while psr.enabled can't. So I think it makes sense
to keep them.
-Daniel
>
> > + if (dev_priv->psr.enabled) {
> > + DRM_DEBUG_KMS("PSR already in use\n");
> > + return;
> > + }
> -Chris
>
> --
> Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre
--
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
