Op 12-02-18 om 16:10 schreef Chris Wilson: > Quoting Maarten Lankhorst (2018-02-09 09:54:00) >> This is a nice preparation for grabbing the uncore lock during evasion. >> Grabbing the spinlock with the lock held messes up the locking, >> so it's easier to handover the reference to the eve >> >> Signed-off-by: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankho...@linux.intel.com> >> --- >> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sprite.c | 11 ++++------- >> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sprite.c >> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sprite.c >> index 3be22c0fcfb5..971a1ea0db45 100644 >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sprite.c >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sprite.c >> @@ -109,10 +109,10 @@ void intel_pipe_update_start(const struct >> intel_crtc_state *new_crtc_state) >> >> local_irq_disable(); >> >> - if (min <= 0 || max <= 0) >> + if (WARN_ON(drm_crtc_vblank_get(&crtc->base))) >> return; >> >> - if (WARN_ON(drm_crtc_vblank_get(&crtc->base))) >> + if (min <= 0 || max <= 0) >> return; >> > The corresponding vblank_put is the one later in update_start(), right? > I don't think you intended to keep this chunk. > -Chris
I'm not sure what you mean? The vblank_put is now in pipe_update_end, except if the event takes over the reference. I think the code is correct. :) _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
