On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 12:32:43PM +0000, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>
> On 03/10/2015 12:19 PM, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 12:02:28PM +0000, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> >>> @@ -13707,13 +13709,18 @@ void intel_modeset_gem_init(struct drm_device *dev)
> >>> NULL)) {
> >>> DRM_ERROR("failed to pin boot fb on pipe %d\n",
> >>> to_intel_crtc(c)->pipe);
> >>> - drm_framebuffer_unreference(c->primary->fb);
> >>> - c->primary->fb = NULL;
> >>> - update_state_fb(c->primary);
> >>> + unused[n_unused++] = c->primary;
> >>> }
> >>> }
> >>> mutex_unlock(&dev->struct_mutex);
> >>>
> >>> + while (n_unused--) {
> >>> + struct drm_plane *p = unused[n_unused];
> >>> + drm_framebuffer_unreference(p->fb);
> >>> + p->fb = NULL;
> >>> + update_state_fb(p);
> >>> + }
> >>> +
> >>
> >> For this one I am not sure. Should c->primary->fb = NULL remain
> >> under the locked loop? If not what is the the mutex protecting then?
> >
> > It's a dummy mutex that only exists to keep the WARNs quiet. This phase
> > of initialisation is explicitly single-threaded.
>
> Would it be a simpler fix then to move the mutex only around
> pin_and_fence_fb_obj?
That would be much nicer indeed.
--
Ville Syrjälä
Intel OTC
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
