On Tue, 26 Aug 2014 09:23:54 +0200 Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 04:24:55PM -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote: > > This happens in irq_postinstall before we've set the pm._irqs_disabled flag, > > but shouldn't warn. So add a nowarn variant to allow this to happen w/o > > a backtrace and keep the rest of the IRQ tracking code happy. > > > > Signed-off-by: Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Shouldn't we instead just move the pm._irqs_disabled = false in i915_dma.c > right above the drm_irq_install call? In > intel_runtime_pm_restore_interrupts we also set it to false before we call > the various hooks. I didn't check on all the paths whether that was safe, we have a lot of warnings. And really this init time thing is a special case, so it made sense to me. > Also the commit message is a bit thin on the usual details like which > commits introduced this regression, so that maintainers know where to > apply this to. I don't have the commit... Oliver do you have it handy? -- Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
