On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 02:20:49PM +0200, Imre Deak wrote:
> On ti, 2016-02-16 at 17:02 +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 06:55:17PM +0200, Imre Deak wrote:
> > > The assumption when adding the intel_display_power_is_enabled()
> > > checks
> > > was that if it returns success
On ti, 2016-02-16 at 17:02 +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 06:55:17PM +0200, Imre Deak wrote:
> > The assumption when adding the intel_display_power_is_enabled()
> > checks
> > was that if it returns success the power can't be turned off
> > afterwards
> > during the HW
On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 06:55:17PM +0200, Imre Deak wrote:
> The assumption when adding the intel_display_power_is_enabled() checks
> was that if it returns success the power can't be turned off afterwards
> during the HW access, which is guaranteed by modeset locks. This isn't
> always true, so
The assumption when adding the intel_display_power_is_enabled() checks
was that if it returns success the power can't be turned off afterwards
during the HW access, which is guaranteed by modeset locks. This isn't
always true, so make sure we hold a dedicated reference for the time of
the access.