On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 07:18:24AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 16:53:17 -0700, Ben Widawsky <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Signed-off-by: Ben Widawsky <[email protected]> > > Just to annoy you, this needs to be split up into the various categories > of fixes. Because... > > > static void ironlake_crtc_dpms(struct drm_crtc *crtc, int mode) > > @@ -3067,9 +3074,12 @@ static void i9xx_crtc_disable(struct drm_crtc *crtc) > > intel_disable_pll(dev_priv, pipe); > > > > intel_crtc->active = false; > > + > > + mutex_lock(&dev->struct_mutex); > > intel_update_fbc(dev); > > intel_update_watermarks(dev); > > intel_clear_scanline_wait(dev); > > + mutex_unlock(&dev->struct_mutex); > > } > > This is overly correct. You can put a comment here to say that we will > never attempt to use FORCEWAKE here and that these registers are protected > by the mode_config lock. Except for intel_clear_scanline_wait, but that > itself is is longing to be killed now. If we haven't fixed the underlying > bug that we were working around by now, we have been too lax. > -Chris
I don't understand what you're asking for. I'm pretty convinced I need the mutex protected intel_update_fbc, because the call trace could be: intel_update_fbc() intel_enable_fbc() ironlake_enable_fbc() sandybridge_blit_fbc_update() gen6_gt_force_wake_get() Could you elaborate? Ben _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
