From: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni@xxxxxxxxx>
As far as I understand, intel_uncore_early_sanitize() was supposed to
be ran before any register access, but currently
intel_resume_prepare() is ran earlier, and it does register
access. I don't think it should be safe to be calling
I915_{READ,WRITE} without calling intel_uncore_early_sanitize() first.
One of the problems we currently have is that when we suspend/resume
BDW, the FPGA_DBG_RM_NOCLAIM bit becomes 1, so we end up printing an
"unclaimed register" message on resume, but this message doesn't
really seem to have been triggered by our driver or user space, since
the bit was not there before suspending, and gets there just after
resuming, before any of our own register accesses. So calling
intel_uncore_early_sanitize() as a first thing will allow us to stop
printing the error message, fixing the "bug".
Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Imre Deak <imre.deak@xxxxxxxxx>
Bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=83094
Signed-off-by: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni@xxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
Maybe we need to move even more code up?
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c
index a05a1d0..dffb173 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c
@@ -665,11 +665,11 @@ static int i915_drm_thaw_early(struct drm_device *dev)
struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = dev->dev_private;
int ret;
+ intel_uncore_early_sanitize(dev, true);
ret = intel_resume_prepare(dev_priv, false);
if (ret)
DRM_ERROR("Resume prepare failed: %d,Continuing resume\n", ret);
- intel_uncore_early_sanitize(dev, true);
intel_uncore_sanitize(dev);
intel_power_domains_init_hw(dev_priv);
--
2.1.1
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
