On Tue, 2014-08-26 at 09:45 +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 09:44:42AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 01:20:06PM +0300, Imre Deak wrote: > > > Before sharing common parts between the system and runtime s/r > > > handlers we WARNed if the runtime s/r handlers were called on GENs that > > > didn't support RPM. But this WARN is not correct if the same handler is > > > called from the system s/r path, since that can happen on any platform. > > > This also broke system s/r on old platforms. > > > > > > The issue was introduced in > > > > > > commit 016970beb05da6285c2f3ed2bee1c676cb75972e > > > Author: Sagar Kamble <sagar.a.kamble@xxxxxxxxx> > > > Date: Wed Aug 13 23:07:06 2014 +0530 > > > > > > Bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=82751 > > > Signed-off-by: Imre Deak <imre.deak@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > Adding boolean arguments to control warnings always feels a bit too much > > like just shutting up the warnings. Can't we instead wrap the relevant > > calls into HAS_RUNTIME_PM checks? I could instead remove the WARN from intel_suspend_complete/resume, and do an early return from intel_runtime_suspend/resume for !HAS_RUNTIME_PM(). Atm we only WARN there. > > Imo that would also lead to clearer code > > by making the intention clear - with this you essentially have to git > > blame to figure out why we sometimes disable the warning. > > Also the patch subject is a bit misleading - we only shut up a wrong > warning, it's not a code fix. We return -ENODEV for old GENs which breaks system suspend for them. --Imre
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
