On Thursday, December 10, 2015 10:36:37 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Thursday, December 10, 2015 11:43:50 AM Imre Deak wrote: > > On Thu, 2015-12-10 at 01:58 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > On Wednesday, December 09, 2015 06:22:19 PM Joonas Lahtinen wrote: > > > > Introduce pm_runtime_get_noidle to for situations where it is not > > > > desireable to touch an idling device. One use scenario is periodic > > > > hangchecks performed by the drm/i915 driver which can be omitted > > > > on a device in a runtime idle state. > > > > > > > > v2: > > > > - Fix inconsistent return value when !CONFIG_PM. > > > > - Update documentation for bool return value > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Reported-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Cc: linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > > > > Well, I don't quite see how this can be used in a non-racy way > > > without doing an additional pm_runtime_resume() or something like > > > that in the same code path. > > > > We don't want to resume, that would be the whole point. We'd like to > > ensure that we hold a reference _and_ the device is already active. So > > AFAICS we'd need to check runtime_status == RPM_ACTIVE in addition > > after taking the reference. > > Right, and that under the lock. Which basically means you can call pm_runtime_resume() just fine, because it will do nothing if the status is RPM_ACTIVE already. So really, why don't you use pm_runtime_get_sync()? Thanks, Rafael _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
