Quoting Michal Wajdeczko (2018-04-06 16:18:53) > On Fri, 06 Apr 2018 16:33:39 +0200, Chris Wilson > <ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk> wrote: > > > We will want to park GEM before disengaging the drive^W^W^W unwedging. > > Since we already do the work for idling, expose the guts as a new > > function that we can then reuse. > > > > v2: Just skip if already parked; makes it more forgiving to use by > > future callers. > > > > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk> > > Cc: Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdec...@intel.com> > > Cc: Sagar Arun Kamble <sagar.a.kam...@intel.com> > > Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursu...@intel.com> > > Cc: Mika Kuoppala <mika.kuopp...@linux.intel.com> > > Reviewed-by: Mika Kuoppala <mika.kuopp...@linux.intel.com> > > --- > > Even with the follow up patch on hold, I think this will be useful when > > we figure out the right order of operations in reset and stands by itself > > as an improvement. > > > > Any objections to pushing this by itself? > > -Chris > > I would only suggest to make this new function more symmetrical to > "mark_busy" from i915_request.c both in naming and location ;)
Fine, we'll pull back unpark and export that as well! -Chris _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
