On 24/03/16 14:31, Chris Wilson wrote:
__force_wake_get() only acquire a temporary wakeref on forcewake that is
automatically releases when a timer expires. When reading the code
again, I confused __intel_uncore_forcewake_get for __force_wake_get and
to my shame thought I found a bug in an unbalanced wake_count handling.
I claim that if the function had been called __force_wake_auto instead I
would not have embarrassed myself.
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <[email protected]>
Cc: Mika Kuoppala <[email protected]>
Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <[email protected]>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.c | 18 +++++++++---------
1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
But how does this fit with arming the timer from the put() elsewhere?
For consistency, should we not also arm it during the put() stage of
these combined get-access-put functions? In other words, put it into the
GEN6_{READ,WRITE}_FOOTER macros? And could they not be structured to use
the same underlying set of functions, i.e. get -> inc ref, write
register if previously zero, put->if ref == 1, arm timer, else dec ref?
.Dave.
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
