On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 06:10:53PM -0700, tom.orourke@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > From: Tom O'Rourke <Tom.O'Rourke@xxxxxxxxx> > > v2: Add mutex lock/unlock > > Signed-off-by: Tom O'Rourke <Tom.O'Rourke@xxxxxxxxx> > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h | 1 + > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c | 2 +- > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_slpc.c | 5 +++++ > 3 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h > index 47e538a..006a8c7 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h > @@ -1612,6 +1612,7 @@ void intel_init_clock_gating_hooks(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv); > void intel_pm_setup(struct drm_device *dev); > void intel_gpu_ips_init(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv); > void intel_gpu_ips_teardown(void); > +void gen6_init_rps_frequencies(struct drm_device *dev); ??? You appear to be exporting a private gen-specific routine. Why? You haven't explained why! >From the looks of it you have a bootstrap ordering issue. Why did you choose to do this? Why didn't you choose to export a more general setup routine? Why couldn't you use an existing setup point? Why couldn't we reorder as required? -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
