On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 04:30:44PM -0200, Paulo Zanoni wrote: > 2014-12-15 16:11 GMT-02:00 Matt Roper <matthew.d.roper@xxxxxxxxx>: > > During plane operations, we read/write some registers that only operate > > properly if we're not runtime suspended. At the moment we're not > > holding the runtime PM reference across the whole plane operation, so > > there's a potential for problems. > > > > This issue was already partially addressed by commit > > > > commit d6dd6843ff4a57c662dbc378b9f99a9c034b0956 > > Author: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni@xxxxxxxxx> > > Date: Fri Aug 15 15:59:32 2014 -0300 > > > > drm/i915: fix plane/cursor handling when runtime suspended > > > > which took care of holding the runtime PM reference during the pin and > > fence operations for plane updates. However there are still a few > > actual plane registers that we also need to hold the runtime PM > > reference for. Recent refactoring patches in preparation for atomic > > have rearranged the code and made it increasingly likely that the > > hardware will have time to suspend between the pin/fence operation and > > the actual register writes. Which kind of registers? If this is just in the system agent then a rpm ref is enough, but if this is also about plane registers then we'd need a reference of the plane power domain. Which would indicate some failure to check for crtc->active somewhere I think. > > The solution here grabs the runtime PM reference around the 'commit' > > operation for planes, which should cover all the relevant register > > reads/writes. > > > > Cc: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni@xxxxxxxxx> > > Bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=87180 > > Signed-off-by: Matt Roper <matthew.d.roper@xxxxxxxxx> > > I see we're in the middle of a very big rework on how all these > prepare/commit functions are called, so I don't think it makes sense > to spend too much time trying to find the very-best-perfect spot for > the get/put calls, since they're likely to be changed later. So I > guess that for now it's important to fix the current "regression" > reported by QA: > > Testcase: igt/pm-rpm/legacy-planes > Reviewed-by: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni@xxxxxxxxx> Also Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx I guess? Or is this only for dinq? -Daniel -- 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
