On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 09:15:00AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 11:02:29AM +0300, David Weinehall wrote:
> > i915_sseu_status() was missing intel_runtime_pm_{get,put},
> > meaning that in some cases access to HW would be attempted
> > while the device is suspended.
> >
> > Testcase: igt/pm_rpm/debugfs-read
> > Signed-off-by: David Weinehall <david.weineh...@linux.intel.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c | 5 +++++
> > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
> > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
> > index e4f2c55d9697..694b0d394c7b 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
> > @@ -5290,11 +5290,14 @@ static int i915_sseu_status(struct seq_file *m,
> > void *unused)
> > {
> > struct drm_info_node *node = (struct drm_info_node *) m->private;
> > struct drm_device *dev = node->minor->dev;
> > + struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = dev->dev_private;
> > struct sseu_dev_status stat;
> >
> > if (INTEL_INFO(dev)->gen < 8)
>
> whilst here: INTEL_GEN(dev_priv) and may as well fix any other dev in
> the function.
>
> > return -ENODEV;
> >
> > + intel_runtime_pm_get(dev_priv);
>
> I was wondering if instead we wanted a
>
> ...sw dump...
> if (intel_runtime_pm_get_if_noidle(dev_priv)) {
> ...hw dump...
> intel_runtime_pm_put();
> } else {
> seq_printf(m, "Device powered down, not probing current HW
> configuration.\n");
> }
There are a lot of cases in the file with similar behaviour.
Maybe a separate patch to clear them all up at once would make sense.
The same goes for dev -> dev_priv (one patch for each of these two
transitions).
Kind regards, David
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
