On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 12:51:31PM +0100, Dave Gordon wrote: > On 20/07/16 12:43, Joonas Lahtinen wrote: > >On ke, 2016-07-20 at 09:59 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > > > >>diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_loader.c > >>b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_loader.c > >>index 605c69658d2c..75a1496ceb6f 100644 > >>--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_loader.c > >>+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_loader.c > >>@@ -737,13 +737,15 @@ void intel_guc_fini(struct drm_device *dev) > >> struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = to_i915(dev); > >> struct intel_guc_fw *guc_fw = &dev_priv->guc.guc_fw; > >> > >>+ if (!guc_fw->guc_fw_obj) > >>+ return; > >>+ > > > >This is definitely not a mechanical change, should be split to separate > >patch (maybe outside of this series too). > > > >With that split out, > > > >Reviewed-by: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahti...@linux.intel.com> > > > >Regards, Joonas > > > >> mutex_lock(&dev->struct_mutex); > >> direct_interrupts_to_host(dev_priv); > >> i915_guc_submission_disable(dev_priv); > >> i915_guc_submission_fini(dev_priv); > >> > >>- if (guc_fw->guc_fw_obj) > >>- drm_gem_object_unreference(&guc_fw->guc_fw_obj->base); > >>+ i915_gem_object_put(guc_fw->guc_fw_obj); > >> guc_fw->guc_fw_obj = NULL; > >> mutex_unlock(&dev->struct_mutex); > > In my version of this set of transformations, I allowed the > reference-releasing function (equivalent to i915_gem_object_put() > here) to be called with NULL as a parameter; > drm_gem_object_unreference() can already handle NULL, and since we > now guarantee gem-obj == NULL <=> i915-obj == NULL, it's safe to > pass it though. That allows quite a few simplifications in various > bits of cleanup code.
There are 3 places where this applies, 2 of which are inside the guc. It is the guc that is where the coventions breakdown. -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
