On Wed, 10 Dec 2025, Maarten Lankhorst <[email protected]> wrote: > Hey, > > Just needs a typo fixed, Matthew Brost also commented that the second I915 > here should be PREEMPT-RT instead.
The commit message does not say what is being done here, and why. "no need for backporting"? "this is only useful for i915"? *what* "doesn't compile with PREEMPT-RT enabled"? Nobody's going to understand what any of this means if a bisect/blame lands here a couple of years from now, even if it's an apparently simple change. BR, Jani. > > Den 2025-12-10 kl. 09:56, skrev Jani Nikula: >> On Tue, 09 Dec 2025, Maarten Lankhorst <[email protected]> wrote: >>> No need for backporting, this is only useful for i915, >>> and it doesn't compile with I915 enabled. >> >> Please elaborate. There's just riddles here. >> >> BR, >> Jani. >> >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Maarten Lankhorst <[email protected]> >>> --- >>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_lpe_audio.c | 2 +- >>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_lpe_audio.c >>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_lpe_audio.c >>> index 5b41abe1c64d5..172c0062237eb 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_lpe_audio.c >>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_lpe_audio.c >>> @@ -262,7 +262,7 @@ void intel_lpe_audio_irq_handler(struct intel_display >>> *display) >>> if (!HAS_LPE_AUDIO(display)) >>> return; >>> >>> - ret = generic_handle_irq(display->audio.lpe.irq); >>> + ret = generic_handle_irq_safe(display->audio.lpe.irq); >>> if (ret) >>> drm_err_ratelimited(display->drm, >>> "error handling LPE audio irq: %d\n", ret); >> > -- Jani Nikula, Intel
