On 18/02/15 16:24, Imre Deak wrote: > On ke, 2015-02-18 at 17:39 +0200, Jani Nikula wrote: >> On Tue, 17 Feb 2015, Klaus Ethgen <Klaus+lkml@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> After solving the conflicts, I applied the revert (see attachment) to >>> v3.18.7. I think it should also apply to the current head. With that >>> patch, suspend is working again on that version. >>> >>> However, I have not to deep knowledge of that subsystem, so please, >>> someone who have, have a deeper look into it. I especially do not know >>> if the lines in .../intel_pm.c are correct or better leaving them as >>> they are in v3.18.7. >>> >>> I want to have it working on a version that I know is stable before >>> asking to pull it to head. >> >> Hi Klaus, we fear this patch may hide the actual cause. Would be useful >> to get a better description of what happens, along with a dmesg with >> drm.debug=14 module parameter set. This might clutter the mailing list, >> would you mind filing a bug at [1] and attach the info there? >> >> Thanks, >> Jani. >> >> [1] https://bugs.freedesktop.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=DRI&component=DRM/Intel > > In addition to the above could you also try the following patch and > provide a dmesg log on the bugzilla ticket - at this point only to try > to narrow down the issue?: > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c > index d358ce8..02c65f4 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c > @@ -4466,6 +4466,14 @@ static irqreturn_t i965_irq_handler(int irq, void *arg) > I915_DISPLAY_PLANE_A_FLIP_PENDING_INTERRUPT | > I915_DISPLAY_PLANE_B_FLIP_PENDING_INTERRUPT; > > + if (!intel_irqs_enabled(dev_priv)) { > + if (printk_ratelimit()) > + DRM_ERROR("spurious/shared interrupt iir %08x imr %08x ier %08x\n", > + I915_READ(IIR), I915_READ(IMR), I915_READ(IER)); > + > + return IRQ_NONE; > + } > + > iir = I915_READ(IIR); > > for (;;) { > @@ -4766,7 +4774,10 @@ void intel_runtime_pm_disable_interrupts(struct drm_device *dev) > struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = dev->dev_private; > > dev->driver->irq_uninstall(dev); > + > + spin_lock_irq(&dev_priv->irq_lock); > dev_priv->pm._irqs_disabled = true; > + spin_unlock_irq(&dev_priv->irq_lock); > } > > /* Restore interrupts so we can recover from runtime PM. */ > @@ -4774,7 +4785,10 @@ void intel_runtime_pm_restore_interrupts(struct drm_device *dev) > { > struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = dev->dev_private; > > + spin_lock_irq(&dev_priv->irq_lock); > dev_priv->pm._irqs_disabled = false; > + spin_unlock_irq(&dev_priv->irq_lock); > + > dev->driver->irq_preinstall(dev); > dev->driver->irq_postinstall(dev); > } Surely surrounding (what ought to be) an atomic assignment to a single variable cannot make a difference? Unless it's the memory barrier semantics that have some effect? It seems unlikely that the compiler has deferred the write to the variable past the pre/postinstall calls that actually enable the h/w interrupts, but maybe we should add "volatile" just in case? .Dave. _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
