On Sat, 28 Jun 2014, Paulo Zanoni wrote:
> From: Paulo Zanoni
>
> It is possible that, by the time we run i915_drm_freeze(),
> delayed_resume_work was already queued but did not run yet. If it
> still didn't run after intel_runtime_pm_disable_interrupts(), by the
> time it runs it will try to cha
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 12:22 PM, Paulo Zanoni wrote:
> 2014-06-27 19:30 GMT-03:00 Rodrigo Vivi :
> > I have the feeling the safest side would be disable rc6 on resume
> instead of
> > force its enabling... or am I missing something?
>
> It will be enabled, then disabled.
>
oh that's true!
>
>
2014-06-27 19:30 GMT-03:00 Rodrigo Vivi :
> I have the feeling the safest side would be disable rc6 on resume instead of
> force its enabling... or am I missing something?
It will be enabled, then disabled.
> why don't you just cancel the work? and put another after resume?
>
> but if the patch r
I have the feeling the safest side would be disable rc6 on resume instead
of force its enabling... or am I missing something?
why don't you just cancel the work? and put another after resume?
but if the patch really solves the problem and this is what you meant feel
free to use:
Reviewed-by: Rodri
From: Paulo Zanoni
It is possible that, by the time we run i915_drm_freeze(),
delayed_resume_work was already queued but did not run yet. If it
still didn't run after intel_runtime_pm_disable_interrupts(), by the
time it runs it will try to change the interrupt registers with the
interrupts alrea
