On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 06:52:15AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 18:31:51 -0700, Ben Widawsky b...@bwidawsk.net wrote:
I think we have no other option since the first thing that
i915_driver_irq_handler() does is read IIR, which according to the limited
knowledge I have
On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 18:01:15 -0700, Ben Widawsky b...@bwidawsk.net wrote:
So once again, I expect this patch to potentially generate a lot of
warnings, but I consider all of those warnings to be serious bugs for
SNB.
If anyone has clever ideas on how to handle this outside of what I've
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 09:02:21AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 18:01:15 -0700, Ben Widawsky b...@bwidawsk.net wrote:
So once again, I expect this patch to potentially generate a lot of
warnings, but I consider all of those warnings to be serious bugs for
SNB.
If
On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 09:56:03 -0700, Keith Packard kei...@keithp.com wrote:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 09:30:22 -0700, Ben Widawsky b...@bwidawsk.net wrote:
I am going to spend at least a day tracking down, and hopefully fixing
warnings if you agree with my next statement that it is in fact a
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 10:41:47AM -0700, Keith Packard wrote:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 18:21:23 +0100, Chris Wilson ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk
wrote:
Agreed. I had been working under the assumption that dev-struct_mutex was
the sufficient lock. This may be entirely due to the false premise that
On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 18:31:51 -0700, Ben Widawsky b...@bwidawsk.net wrote:
I think we have no other option since the first thing that
i915_driver_irq_handler() does is read IIR, which according to the limited
knowledge I have requires forcewake.
I think the eventual plan will be to figure out
On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 18:31:51 -0700, Ben Widawsky b...@bwidawsk.net wrote:
I think we have no other option since the first thing that
i915_driver_irq_handler() does is read IIR, which according to the limited
knowledge I have requires forcewake.
That makes no sense at all. :(
But then I'm only
Contrary to the discussion on IRC, I have decided not to add
config.mutex as part of the warning criteria. Upon further thought, it
just seemed incorrect to me. This patch series implies that all register
reads which may require a forcewake must now hold struct_mutex, ie. make
struct_mutex more
