On Mon, 2018-01-08 at 15:43 +0100, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
> Op 06-01-18 om 10:51 schreef Dhinakaran Pandiyan:
> > On Thursday, January 4, 2018 12:35:48 PM PST Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
> >> Op 03-01-18 om 21:39 schreef Dhinakaran Pandiyan:
> >>> Since we want to allow for a non-blocking power
Op 06-01-18 om 10:51 schreef Dhinakaran Pandiyan:
> On Thursday, January 4, 2018 12:35:48 PM PST Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
>> Op 03-01-18 om 21:39 schreef Dhinakaran Pandiyan:
>>> Since we want to allow for a non-blocking power domain for vblanks,
>>> the power domain use count and power well use
On Thursday, January 4, 2018 12:35:48 PM PST Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
> Op 03-01-18 om 21:39 schreef Dhinakaran Pandiyan:
> > Since we want to allow for a non-blocking power domain for vblanks,
> > the power domain use count and power well use count will not be updated
> > atomically inside the
On Fri, 2018-01-05 at 10:09 -0800, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 05, 2018 at 11:23:54AM +, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
> > Op 04-01-18 om 22:51 schreef Pandiyan, Dhinakaran:
> > > On Thu, 2018-01-04 at 12:35 +0100, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
> > >> Wouldn't it be better to make
On Fri, Jan 05, 2018 at 11:23:54AM +, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
> Op 04-01-18 om 22:51 schreef Pandiyan, Dhinakaran:
> > On Thu, 2018-01-04 at 12:35 +0100, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
> >> Wouldn't it be better to make intel_power_domains_verify_state work
> >> correctly with the vblank irq?
> > I
Op 04-01-18 om 22:51 schreef Pandiyan, Dhinakaran:
> On Thu, 2018-01-04 at 12:35 +0100, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
>> Wouldn't it be better to make intel_power_domains_verify_state work
>> correctly with the vblank irq?
> I tried to :) Since I changed the domain_use_count to atomic_t and moved
> it
On Thu, 2018-01-04 at 12:35 +0100, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
> Wouldn't it be better to make intel_power_domains_verify_state work
> correctly with the vblank irq?
I tried to :) Since I changed the domain_use_count to atomic_t and moved
it outside of the locks, verify_state became racy. Let me
On Wed, 2018-01-03 at 20:57 +, Chris Wilson wrote:
> Quoting Dhinakaran Pandiyan (2018-01-03 20:39:59)
> > Since we want to allow for a non-blocking power domain for vblanks,
> > the power domain use count and power well use count will not be updated
> > atomically inside the power domain
Op 03-01-18 om 21:39 schreef Dhinakaran Pandiyan:
> Since we want to allow for a non-blocking power domain for vblanks,
> the power domain use count and power well use count will not be updated
> atomically inside the power domain mutex (see next patch). This affects
> verifying if
Quoting Dhinakaran Pandiyan (2018-01-03 20:39:59)
> Since we want to allow for a non-blocking power domain for vblanks,
> the power domain use count and power well use count will not be updated
> atomically inside the power domain mutex (see next patch). This affects
> verifying if
Since we want to allow for a non-blocking power domain for vblanks,
the power domain use count and power well use count will not be updated
atomically inside the power domain mutex (see next patch). This affects
verifying if sum(power_domain_use_count) == power_well_use_count at
init time. So do
11 matches
Mail list logo
