On 24/03/16 14:31, Chris Wilson wrote:
__force_wake_get() only acquire a temporary wakeref on forcewake that is automatically releases when a timer expires. When reading the code again, I confused __intel_uncore_forcewake_get for __force_wake_get and to my shame thought I found a bug in an unbalanced wake_count handling. I claim that if the function had been called __force_wake_auto instead I would not have embarrassed myself. Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Cc: Mika Kuoppala <mika.kuoppala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.c | 18 +++++++++--------- 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
But how does this fit with arming the timer from the put() elsewhere? For consistency, should we not also arm it during the put() stage of these combined get-access-put functions? In other words, put it into the GEN6_{READ,WRITE}_FOOTER macros? And could they not be structured to use the same underlying set of functions, i.e. get -> inc ref, write register if previously zero, put->if ref == 1, arm timer, else dec ref?
.Dave. _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
