On Sat, Jul 30, 2022 at 2:41 AM Akhil P Oommen <quic_akhilpo@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > We already enable gpu power from msm_gpu_submit(), so avoid a duplicate > pm_runtime_get/put from msm_job_run(). > > Signed-off-by: Akhil P Oommen <quic_akhilpo@xxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > > (no changes since v1) > > drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_ringbuffer.c | 4 ---- > 1 file changed, 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_ringbuffer.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_ringbuffer.c > index 56eecb4..cad4c35 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_ringbuffer.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_ringbuffer.c > @@ -29,8 +29,6 @@ static struct dma_fence *msm_job_run(struct drm_sched_job *job) > msm_gem_unlock(obj); > } > > - pm_runtime_get_sync(&gpu->pdev->dev); > - This is removing a _get_sync() and simply relying on a _get() (async) in msm_gpu_submit().. that seems pretty likely to go badly? I think it should probably replace the _get() in msm_gpu_submit() with _get_sync() (but also since this is changing position of resume/suspend vs active_lock, please make sure you test with lockdep enabled) BR, -R > /* TODO move submit path over to using a per-ring lock.. */ > mutex_lock(&gpu->lock); > > @@ -38,8 +36,6 @@ static struct dma_fence *msm_job_run(struct drm_sched_job *job) > > mutex_unlock(&gpu->lock); > > - pm_runtime_put(&gpu->pdev->dev); > - > return dma_fence_get(submit->hw_fence); > } > > -- > 2.7.4 >
