On Wed, 2019-04-03 at 17:27 -0700, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 03, 2019 at 04:35:35PM -0700, José Roberto de Souza
> wrote:
> > Even when driver is reloaded and hits this scenario the PSR mutex
> > should be initialized, otherwise reading PSR debugfs status will
> > execute mutex_lock() over a mutex that was not initialized.
> >
> > Cc: Dhinakaran Pandiyan <dhinakaran.pandi...@intel.com>
> > Cc: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.v...@intel.com>
> > Signed-off-by: José Roberto de Souza <jose.so...@intel.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c | 1 -
> > 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c
> > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c
> > index c80bb3003a7d..a84da931c3be 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c
> > @@ -1227,7 +1227,6 @@ void intel_psr_init(struct drm_i915_private
> > *dev_priv)
> > if (val) {
> > DRM_DEBUG_KMS("PSR interruption error set\n");
> > dev_priv->psr.sink_not_reliable = true;
> > - return;
>
> There are other returns above and if debugfs hits this case maybe it
> is worth to move the mutex initialization up instead?We have those two returns in PSR debugfs, !HAS_PSR(dev_priv) and !psr- >sink_support and in this cases we don't have any PSR functionality so not worthy to initialize anything PSR related. > > > } > > > > /* Set link_standby x link_off defaults */ > > -- > > 2.21.0 > >
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
