On Thu, 4 Sep 2014 17:59:18 +0200 Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 1:00 AM, Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c > >> index 9eb303c1b621..76bc4d0de5a4 100644 > >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c > >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c > >> @@ -589,6 +589,7 @@ __i915_enable_pipestat(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv, enum pipe pipe, > >> u32 pipestat = I915_READ(reg) & PIPESTAT_INT_ENABLE_MASK; > >> > >> assert_spin_locked(&dev_priv->irq_lock); > >> + WARN_ON(!intel_irqs_enabled(dev_priv)); > >> > >> if (WARN_ONCE(enable_mask & ~PIPESTAT_INT_ENABLE_MASK || > >> status_mask & ~PIPESTAT_INT_STATUS_MASK, > >> @@ -615,6 +616,7 @@ __i915_disable_pipestat(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv, enum pipe pipe, > >> u32 pipestat = I915_READ(reg) & PIPESTAT_INT_ENABLE_MASK; > >> > >> assert_spin_locked(&dev_priv->irq_lock); > >> + WARN_ON(!intel_irqs_enabled(dev_priv)); > >> > >> if (WARN_ONCE(enable_mask & ~PIPESTAT_INT_ENABLE_MASK || > >> status_mask & ~PIPESTAT_INT_STATUS_MASK, > > > > Yeah looks good, wonder if it'll trigger any new warnings. > > It will blow up in a bunch of postinstall hooks, just like the one for > ilk. At least without my patch to shuffle the pm._irqs_disabled > assignment around. > > > Reviewed-by: Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > ... so does that count as an implicit r-b on my other patch? Sure, though didn't Jani find some issues with it? -- Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
